James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 372209 Views
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #300 on: December 05, 2009, 08:44:31 AM »
I'm baffled as to how the oceanic voyages of Polynesians or Australian aborigines proves anything about dinosaurs. Native Hawaiians are human, so it is not surprising that their ancestors built adequate boats.

There is not really any evidence from the "fossil record" to support the idea of sea-faring dinosaur civilizations. There's the jaguar, which is part of the Panthera genus (along with the lion and the tiger) yet the jaguar is only found in the Americas and is the only member of that genus in the Americas. Did some tiger or leopard cross the oceans with magnificent boats? Of course not. The ancestor of the jaguar crossed  the Bering land bridge.

James is assuming a lot about how Earth was geographically. I already proved him to be wrong on the small plesiosaur (Trinacromerum) he tried to pass off as a "pet" or traded as a source of blubber, by showing that the areas where Trinacromerum lived were covered by water at the time, by a huge inland sea.

So what are the chances, assuming Deinonychus is found in both hemispheres, or however the "evidence" goes, that there was a land bridge. I say very likely.


Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #301 on: December 05, 2009, 08:51:58 AM »

"Now that you have a lot of "could have" propositions, it is time to do a little scientific investigation."

I think it is widely accepted that squirrels store food for the winter, elephants swim for miles and ants use their bodies for flotation devices.

"For example, how many birds have you seen talking to land animals?"

Have you ever seen a mocking bird communicating to other land animals near its nest? I have witnessed this as have many others. I dare say it is you that lacks the evidence.

"You also require some evidence, not just speculation."

I am sure that I could provide you with some evidence of squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices if you so require. This is not speculation.


Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #302 on: December 05, 2009, 11:20:12 AM »
I am sure that I could provide you with some evidence of squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices if you so require. This is not speculation.

That would be totally cool but totally irrelevant. Even if you produce a squirrel/elephant/ant hybrid (Squelephant?) with thumbs and brains that builds boats, sails them across the oceans with livestock and other materials it won't make dinosaurs start doing the same.


Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #303 on: December 05, 2009, 07:43:09 PM »

That would be totally cool but totally irrelevant. Even if you produce a squirrel/elephant/ant hybrid (Squelephant?) with thumbs and brains that builds boats, sails them across the oceans with livestock and other materials it won't make dinosaurs start doing the same.
[/quote]

If a less evolved organism (an elephant, and, bird, squirrel, etc.) can perform these tasks, it is only logical that their physical and mental superior (the dinosaur) do the same. I think the evidence speaks for itself.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #304 on: December 06, 2009, 06:23:02 AM »

Do you know how far away the Marquesas islands (origin point of the Polynesian settlers) are from Hawaii? Spreading through the Hawaiian island chain itself may have been relatively easy, but the Marquesas are about 2,000 miles away, with no land in between. We're not talking about leapfrog here, but genuine oceanic travel.

Just to mention a few, there are: Jarvis Islands, Kiribati, the Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef and the Johnston Atoll. But apart from the big islands with known names, the whole area is near a huge fault that created (and continues to create) a great string of underwater mountains, some of which rise above sea level and constitute the aforementioned islands. Hawaii is also the result of the volcanic activity of the area and is surrounded by big and tiny islands.


Sorry, I was trying to respond to this yesterday when my internet went kaput. Anyway, all of the islands you mention do not lie between Hawaii and the Marquesas. The colonists would have had to take a longer, more circuitous route through islands that were already inhabited, which seems very unlikely. Everything I've read on the subject suggests that it was a direct, point to point migration. There are no other islands between Hawaii and the Marquesas.


Besides, even if we assume they did island-hop (contrary to what experts believe), Hawaii is still a considerable distance from any point in the Kiribati island cluster, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Get out a map and look at the distance between the Marquesas and Hawaii. The colonists covered that distance in simple, rudimentary boats.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hawaii#Settlement

And the biggest livestock they carried was pigs. You do not need a great infrastructure to go from island to island, creating colonies in every intermediate step, and in that way requiring relatively simple boats and minimal supplies to cover large final distances. It is completely different than traveling long distances with no intermediate steps.


Look, you need to stop trying to pass this off as island hopping. The Polynesians were able navigators, and the fact that they made trans-oceanic voyages is an accepted fact. From the opening paragraph of the article on Polynesian navigation:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation
Quote
Polynesian navigation was a system of navigation used by Polynesians to make long voyages across thousands of miles of open ocean.


In fact, the distance from Marquesas Islands to Hawaii is similar to the distance from Hawaii to mainland USA. but no Polynesians ever made that trip. Wonder why?


Here's some reading for you:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation#Pre-Columbian_contact_with_the_Americas


I'm not saying its a proven theory, just that it is generally considered a legitimate contention that demonstrates how capable the Polynesians were at trans-oceanic travel.
"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

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #305 on: December 06, 2009, 08:53:17 AM »
Whatever the Polynesians did or didn't do, nor where they did or didn't go in no way makes dinosaurs sail the seas.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #306 on: December 06, 2009, 09:06:18 AM »
Besides, even if we assume they did island-hop (contrary to what experts believe),...
Wait a minute, do you know what experts believe? Then how is it that your only source is Wikipedia? And don't you think that your only expert, cited in Wikipedia, Thor Heyerdahl, did not even try to explain how the Polynesians calculated the route between their islands and America because they did not have the means for such a feat?

The travels you suggest require lots of things, not just capacity to carry food, water, livestock and maybe means to fish additional food. It requires the capacity to navigate with enough precision to find other landmasses. Otherwise you are just inviting almost certain death. Exactly what means did the Polynesians have to make a 2000 mile trip from one island to another island, and not get off course by a few degrees, getting lost forever in the sea? And what means did your intelligent dinosaurs have?

Anyhow, even if you ever get to convince anyone that Polynesians were able to do any transoceanic travel, you still have not even tried to explain how your intelligent dinosaurs from the Cretaceous managed to propagate hundreds or thousands of species of dinosaurs, other animals and plants to all the other continents on an ongoing basis, starting in the Triassic. Were they so intelligent that they created time machines?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 09:17:06 AM by trig »

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #307 on: December 06, 2009, 03:36:48 PM »
If a less evolved organism (an elephant, and, bird, squirrel, etc.) can perform these tasks, it is only logical that their physical and mental superior (the dinosaur) do the same. I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Umm. Elephants, birds and squirrels are all more evolved than dinosaurs.

lrn2evolution.

Whatever the Polynesians did or didn't do, nor where they did or didn't go in no way makes dinosaurs sail the seas.

QFT. But Wilmore will never get it.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #308 on: December 07, 2009, 06:10:53 AM »
Besides, even if we assume they did island-hop (contrary to what experts believe),...
Wait a minute, do you know what experts believe? Then how is it that your only source is Wikipedia? And don't you think that your only expert, cited in Wikipedia, Thor Heyerdahl, did not even try to explain how the Polynesians calculated the route between their islands and America because they did not have the means for such a feat?


Do you know how to use Wikipedia? Their are loads of other sources linked at the bottom of the page. Just look at the notes section:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation#Notes


Wikipedia minus other sources = a poor source. A wiki article that can direct you to numerous other, credible sources is another matter.
"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

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #309 on: December 07, 2009, 06:20:25 AM »
Do you know how to use Wikipedia? Their are loads of other sources linked at the bottom of the page. Just look at the notes section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesian_navigation#Notes

Wikipedia minus other sources = a poor source. A wiki article that can direct you to numerous other, credible sources is another matter.

Like This?
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #310 on: December 07, 2009, 06:57:14 AM »
If a less evolved organism (an elephant, and, bird, squirrel, etc.) can perform these tasks, it is only logical that their physical and mental superior (the dinosaur) do the same. I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Umm. Elephants, birds and squirrels are all more evolved than dinosaurs.



Forgive my ignorance, perhaps it is a translation issue. I did not know we were playing a semantics game. Let us say elephants, birds and squirrels are less capable than dinosaurs, as evidenced by their mental capacity and fossil record.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #311 on: December 07, 2009, 07:19:16 AM »
Let us say elephants, birds and squirrels are less capable than dinosaurs, as evidenced by their mental capacity and fossil record.

But you have no evidence for judging the mental capacity of dinosaurs. You have no fossil evidence of dinosaur boats.

You cherry pick parts from a few mammals that might support your conclusion and then try and paste them all onto a dinosaur. It fails in so many ways I can't count them.


Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #312 on: December 07, 2009, 08:15:24 AM »
Let us say elephants, birds and squirrels are less capable than dinosaurs, as evidenced by their mental capacity and fossil record.

But you have no evidence for judging the mental capacity of dinosaurs. You have no fossil evidence of dinosaur boats.

You cherry pick parts from a few mammals that might support your conclusion and then try and paste them all onto a dinosaur. It fails in so many ways I can't count them.



Your logic is so befuddling. We cannot observe the action so it did not happen. Yet you accept "gravity" as a law even though there is no explanation or observation a magical attraction between objects.  Unlike fairy tale land we have observed these actions in species. I think it is only logical to assign them to a superior species. The fossil record illustrates the migratory pattern of dinosaurs. How do you propose they migrated?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #313 on: December 07, 2009, 09:06:26 AM »
Your logic is so befuddling. We cannot observe the action so it did not happen.

It would be better put as "We cannot observe the action so we cannot say it happened."

Yet you accept "gravity" as a law even though there is no explanation or observation a magical attraction between objects.

The effect of gravity is observed. Gravity has nothing to do with dinosaurs. Don't derail the thread.

Unlike fairy tale land we have observed these actions in species.

You may have observed squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices but you have not observed, either directly or indirectly, dinosaurs sailing the oceans in galleons.

I think it is only logical to assign them to a superior species.

Dinosaurs are not superior species. The concept makes no sense.

The fossil record illustrates the migratory pattern of dinosaurs. How do you propose they migrated?

Continental drift. It's been posted here about a gazillion times I'm surprised its new to you.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #314 on: December 07, 2009, 09:25:00 AM »
Your logic is so befuddling. We cannot observe the action so it did not happen.

It would be better put as "We cannot observe the action so we cannot say it happened."

Yet you accept "gravity" as a law even though there is no explanation or observation a magical attraction between objects.

The effect of gravity is observed. Gravity has nothing to do with dinosaurs. Don't derail the thread.

Unlike fairy tale land we have observed these actions in species.

You may have observed squirrels storing food for the winter, elephants swimming and ants using their bodies as flotation devices but you have not observed, either directly or indirectly, dinosaurs sailing the oceans in galleons.

I think it is only logical to assign them to a superior species.

Dinosaurs are not superior species. The concept makes no sense.

The fossil record illustrates the migratory pattern of dinosaurs. How do you propose they migrated?

Continental drift. It's been posted here about a gazillion times I'm surprised its new to you.


Many conclusions in science have been reached based on logical assumptions based on historical or fossil records. For example, evolution - no one has found an intermediary species. Gravity - just because something falls you assume a magical force pulls it down.

What you say is the observed effect of gravity can be explained without some magical attraction between inanimate objects.

While I have not personally observed dinosaurs crossing the oceans in flotation devices I have seen the fossil record. The record shows us the same species are all over the earth. Since continental drift is a myth the only other explanation is that the dinosaurs crossed the oceans. I doubt dinosaurs were capable of creating something as extravagant as a galleon. I suspect the craft was made of nesting materials or other dinosaur bodies, much like modern day ants create. Look at the evidence.

Further, dinosaurs were the superior species at the time. Their status as the dominant class of their day along with their ability to use logic and tools proves their intellectual superiority over other species. I thought this part of the debate had concluded.

Continental drift is a nice theory but it has never been observed. Certainly it is obvious that the Earth shifts from time to time but this amounts to no more than settling, similar to the concrete foundation of a home settling. While my home settles it will never gradually move to my neighbors yard, that would be ridiculous. I find it amusing that you subscribe to this logic since you have not observed it, as is your argument against dinosaur migration.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #315 on: December 07, 2009, 02:01:08 PM »
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #316 on: December 07, 2009, 02:04:23 PM »
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.

This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere  ::)

Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #317 on: December 07, 2009, 02:16:55 PM »
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.

This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere  ::)

Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?

Perhaps it did not contribute much to you in your extravagance but it may have changed "Lice Farm"'s life. To "Lice Farm" - I wish you success.

I am familiar with the theory of continental drift so your "evidence" is not necessary unless it is something other than the "we measured the drift" discussion. What you are measuring is a small point in time of the Earth shifting back and forth instead of millions of years of this activity. Perhaps you only measured the "forth" time frame. Had you a larger time frame then it would be valid and we could arrive at the truth together. However, I think your continental drift theories detract from the thread regarding the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #318 on: December 07, 2009, 03:01:14 PM »
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.

This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere  ::)

Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?

Perhaps it did not contribute much to you in your extravagance but it may have changed "Lice Farm"'s life. To "Lice Farm" - I wish you success.

I am familiar with the theory of continental drift so your "evidence" is not necessary unless it is something other than the "we measured the drift" discussion. What you are measuring is a small point in time of the Earth shifting back and forth instead of millions of years of this activity. Perhaps you only measured the "forth" time frame. Had you a larger time frame then it would be valid and we could arrive at the truth together. However, I think your continental drift theories detract from the thread regarding the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

How about that you get seams of rock that fit perfectly, like a jigsaw, with ones on the land across oceans? Like a band of one type of rock sandwiched between several other types, with exactly the same combination aligned the same way on the opposing shore? Also, explain how we can clearly witness sea floor being created and destroyed? Any you have metallic rock spreading out from a divergence zone that has aligned itself to the earth's magnetic field as it cools, and as the earths magnetic field inverts polarity so does whichever portion of the metallic rock is cooling at the time. So from the divergence zone you get patterns of:

|||----||||||------||--|||||-----|||| O ||||-----|||||--||------||||||----|||

Where |'s are where the earth's north magnetic pole is where the geological south pole is, and - is the opposite.

Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #319 on: December 07, 2009, 03:06:50 PM »
Fail.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html

NASA
Sorry, but none of them will listen because it has that damned phrase in it. But yes, there is plenty of proof that even FE'ers must be able to accept, which doesn't even involve NASA!

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #320 on: December 07, 2009, 03:18:34 PM »
Many conclusions in science have been reached based on logical assumptions based on historical or fossil records. For example, evolution - no one has found an intermediary species. Gravity - just because something falls you assume a magical force pulls it down.

Both incorrect statements.


Since continental drift is a myth...

There's your problem in a nutshell, you'd rather believe an anonymous internet nutter with some watercolour pictures of dino sailors than all decades of research and study for geophysics.

Their status as the dominant class of their day along with their ability to use logic and tools proves their intellectual superiority over other species. I thought this part of the debate had concluded.

I must have missed the posts where you posted evidence of "logic" and tool use.

Continental drift is a nice theory but it has never been observed.

Fail.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html

Oh, well since you say the statements are incorrect then it must be so. (Sarcasm again). It amuses me that you criticize me for presenting a lack of evidence even though this website is full of facts and evidence yet you provide none yourself.

I assure you that any conclusions I have reached are based on facts in evidence and not based on the musings of a few individuals. As I understand it, your response is "No it isn't". Well put Lice Farm, well put indeed.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #321 on: December 07, 2009, 03:27:54 PM »
Many conclusions in science have been reached based on logical assumptions based on historical or fossil records. For example, evolution - no one has found an intermediary species. Gravity - just because something falls you assume a magical force pulls it down.

Both incorrect statements.


Since continental drift is a myth...

There's your problem in a nutshell, you'd rather believe an anonymous internet nutter with some watercolour pictures of dino sailors than all decades of research and study for geophysics.

Their status as the dominant class of their day along with their ability to use logic and tools proves their intellectual superiority over other species. I thought this part of the debate had concluded.

I must have missed the posts where you posted evidence of "logic" and tool use.

Continental drift is a nice theory but it has never been observed.

Fail.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html

Oh, well since you say the statements are incorrect then it must be so. (Sarcasm again). It amuses me that you criticize me for presenting a lack of evidence even though this website is full of facts and evidence yet you provide none yourself.

I assure you that any conclusions I have reached are based on facts in evidence and not based on the musings of a few individuals. As I understand it, your response is "No it isn't". Well put Lice Farm, well put indeed.
Someone is in denial  ::)
You are defeating the point of a debate by simply ignoring the evidence and arguing over something that you have absolutely no hope in disproving, just to not admit defeat. Every post you make arguing against CD, you lose respect and whatever impression of intelligence remains.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #322 on: December 07, 2009, 03:33:07 PM »
To "Lice Farm"

I assume you name is indicative of a condition you may be suffering from. In the spirit of reconciliation in arriving at the truth I offer you the following:

In my country lice is a horrid epidemic. You may rid yourself of lice by following these simple instructions. The first step of treatment is to apply Vegetable Shortening, Olive Oil or Mayonnaise to your hair. Since there is a scarcity of these items in my town we use Mineral Oil and Bleach. Rub a sufficient amount of any of these into your hair, saturating hair and roots well. Cover the whole thing with shower cap or saran wrap. Let it sit for 2-3 hours- that should be enough to kill head lice and nits. Wash your hair with shampoo and follow with rinsing with white vinegar to dissolve the the ?adhesive? lice nits use to stick to the hair shaft. Rinse hair with water and use nit comb to remove the remaining nits. You should repeat the whole process in one week.

I find this to work quite well for me and my family.

This did not contribute much to the thread, you can assist him with his condition elsewhere  ::)

Continental drift is not a myth, unless you prove it to be. Or would you like us to supply the evidence?

Perhaps it did not contribute much to you in your extravagance but it may have changed "Lice Farm"'s life. To "Lice Farm" - I wish you success.

I am familiar with the theory of continental drift so your "evidence" is not necessary unless it is something other than the "we measured the drift" discussion. What you are measuring is a small point in time of the Earth shifting back and forth instead of millions of years of this activity. Perhaps you only measured the "forth" time frame. Had you a larger time frame then it would be valid and we could arrive at the truth together. However, I think your continental drift theories detract from the thread regarding the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

How about that you get seams of rock that fit perfectly, like a jigsaw, with ones on the land across oceans? Like a band of one type of rock sandwiched between several other types, with exactly the same combination aligned the same way on the opposing shore? Also, explain how we can clearly witness sea floor being created and destroyed? Any you have metallic rock spreading out from a divergence zone that has aligned itself to the earth's magnetic field as it cools, and as the earths magnetic field inverts polarity so does whichever portion of the metallic rock is cooling at the time. So from the divergence zone you get patterns of:

|||----||||||------||--|||||-----|||| O ||||-----|||||--||------||||||----|||

Where |'s are where the earth's north magnetic pole is where the geological south pole is, and - is the opposite.

Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.

You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs. However, I will address your "evidence".

Has anyone ever put the continents together to see if they matched? I do not see a perfect match. This is about as ridiculous as your "magic gravity" theory. Could you entertain me and provide the source of the polarity measurements. I suspect I know their origins and have an issue with the validity of that data. I will give you specifics when you provide the source.

Sea floor activity is the result of sub-oceanic volcanic activity. Your blind acceptance of plate tectonics and continental drift is amusing. You accuse me of not providing evidence yet you yourself state that "Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact" without providing any evidence. I have provided evidence to this effect and you have dismissed it. In your mind the spherical shape of the Earth is an established fact. Your preconceptions have blinded you from the truth.

If you are so convinced that the Earth is round then why are you here? You must consider me a "nut" and therefore incapable of providing you with facts and evidence. The ironic thing is that all of the evidence you require is on this site yet you blind yourself with theories you accept as fact. The "theory" of gravity, the "theory" of evolution. None of these have been proven.

Continue please...


Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #323 on: December 07, 2009, 03:40:03 PM »

Quote
Someone is in denial  ::)
You are defeating the point of a debate by simply ignoring the evidence and arguing over something that you have absolutely no hope in disproving, just to not admit defeat. Every post you make arguing against CD, you lose respect and whatever impression of intelligence remains.

Forgive my translation, English is my fourth language and I still have problems communicating my point. I must retire for the evening but I am beginning to get wise to your tactics. Simply stating that I ignore evidence does not make it so. Why is the burden of proof laid upon my shoulders. I have repeatedly laid evidence at your feet yet you continue to do as you accuse me, ignore it. If you believe I am incorrect please show me evidence where I am wrong. My desire is the truth. I invite you to tell me where I am wrong. Goodnight.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #324 on: December 07, 2009, 03:46:55 PM »

Has anyone ever put the continents together to see if they matched? I do not see a perfect match.


Yes, they have compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. Even just looking at the shape of them you can see they would tesselate together quite well, but studies of the rocks in these areas reveal them to be consistent with those parts of the world having been joined together at one time.

Quote
Your blind acceptance of plate tectonics and continental drift is amusing. You accuse me of not providing evidence yet you yourself state that "Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact" without providing any evidence.

Well actually the distance between continents on either side of the atlantic has been measured, and they're slowly getting further apart. I'd say that's evidence for continental drift. The fact that earthquakes and vulcanism happen along known fault lines is also good evidence of plate tectonics.

You clearly know next to nothing about geology.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #325 on: December 07, 2009, 04:11:45 PM »
While I have not personally observed dinosaurs crossing the oceans in flotation devices I have seen the fossil record. The record shows us the same species are all over the earth.
You have chosen to declare that the fossil record supports your speculation many, many times and yet you cannot explain more than a tiny bit of it with your speculation.

The fossil record shows, almost as you say, very similar species of dinosaurs, other animals and plants all over the Earth. But the record does not show a rather localized (in time and space) migration of a few species, as the one that your intelligent dinosaurs supposedly carried out. It shows several species migrating in very different times, from some time in the Paleozoic until the Cretaceous (some 600 million years or so).

Even if we were to accept your speculation, it would only explain a handful of migrating species during a period of at most some thousands of years.

So, what part of your speculation will change to accommodate the full 650 million years of fossil record? Or are you going to denounce most of it as part of the conspiracy?

?

xXxFlAt_3aRtH4LyPhExXx

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #326 on: December 07, 2009, 04:26:35 PM »
Yeah, the fossil record does show that. He's right you know.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #327 on: December 07, 2009, 04:34:40 PM »
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.

You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

Tectonic plates and continental drift is precisely what we are discussing here, since the reason for the migrating patterns seen in the fossil record is the availability of migration routes at several different times between all the continents.

The whole reason for James to come up with intelligent dinosaurs was, specifically, to have an alternative to continental drift, and you also said the same.

So, go and find a reason for the migrations of all the flora and fauna seen in the fossil record, during all the 650 million years since the Paleozoic began, and I will listen to you. If you can only argue about a few species carried by some intelligent dinosaurs some 65 or 70 million years ago, your speculation is just not ready for discussion.

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #328 on: December 07, 2009, 06:16:04 PM »

Has anyone ever put the continents together to see if they matched? I do not see a perfect match.


Yes, they have compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. Even just looking at the shape of them you can see they would tesselate together quite well, but studies of the rocks in these areas reveal them to be consistent with those parts of the world having been joined together at one time.

Quote
Your blind acceptance of plate tectonics and continental drift is amusing. You accuse me of not providing evidence yet you yourself state that "Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact" without providing any evidence.

Well actually the distance between continents on either side of the atlantic has been measured, and they're slowly getting further apart. I'd say that's evidence for continental drift. The fact that earthquakes and vulcanism happen along known fault lines is also good evidence of plate tectonics.

You clearly know next to nothing about geology.
"
I see your newest tactic is to resort to denigration. On your next post could you insult my personal hygiene? I have tried to be patient with you. My assistant says I should be friendly in my response. 

So... they compared the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. For all of your cries for evidence, this is your response? "They" compared the west coast of Africa and the East coast of South America? Wow! Groundbreaking. I am losing my patience with your ignorant ramblings about some guy that found two continents that might tesselate together. Then you baffle me with the news that rocks are consistent. Really? There are consistencies between rocks? There are documented cases of the similarities in rocks in Iceland and Australia. I think this bursts your false hopes of Neverland, or Pangea as you know it.

So there is measured evidence that continents are moving further apart? I have already addressed this. But redundancy seems to be necessary for you to comprehend. Have you ever asked yourself 1) who performs those measurements? 2) what time period the measurements encompass? I have also previously addressed this. If the measurements are accurate then you are seeing a small representation of movement and applying it to eternity. You witness 80 years of data and apply it to the beginning of time. I suspect your knowledge of geology is a bit biased. Wouldn't you agree?

Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #329 on: December 07, 2009, 06:25:33 PM »
Tectonic plates and continental drift is established fact, please don't waste anyone's time arguing otherwise.

You seem to be veering off topic. I understood this to be a discussion on the migratory patterns of dinosaurs.

Tectonic plates and continental drift is precisely what we are discussing here, since the reason for the migrating patterns seen in the fossil record is the availability of migration routes at several different times between all the continents.

The whole reason for James to come up with intelligent dinosaurs was, specifically, to have an alternative to continental drift, and you also said the same.

So, go and find a reason for the migrations of all the flora and fauna seen in the fossil record, during all the 650 million years since the Paleozoic began, and I will listen to you. If you can only argue about a few species carried by some intelligent dinosaurs some 65 or 70 million years ago, your speculation is just not ready for discussion.

Do you not think that your hypothesis is a bit ridiculous? You are intimating that dinosaurs spread across "Pangea". I suppose they never came to a large river or crevasse? How did they cross this obstacles? Did they leap across the Grand Canyon? Did they fight the mighty current of vast rivers? I think not. It seems far more likely that an egg or a nest floated across an ocean than your hypothesis. At least the fossil record supports our claim. Nice try.

Also, do not think your attempt to get me off topic went unnoticed. Now we are discussing flaura and fauna? Nice try. I see your new game is bait and switch.