James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: trig on December 07, 2009, 04:34:40 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 03:33:07 PM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 03:01:14 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.

Actually the point of discussion was not migratory patterns of dinosaurs, but rather the claim that they had the ability to master complex tools, create sailing crafts, calculate loading capacity of said crafts, preserve meat, store water, organize labor, and transport flora and fauna to their new found land.  This is the supposed alternate to continental drift, so I see no bait and switch.

Wildabeest cross rivers on their migration route in Kenya, so for a dinosaur "of superior intellect" to do it shouldn't strike you as being out of the question.  Why would they have to leap across a canyon when they could go around it?  You cry for evidence, yet you provide none to declare why a nest or egg floating across an ocean is more likely in light of storms generating rough seas, the fact that a nest floating on the open sea would attract predators as a life-raft attracts sharks, and the thundering surf it would have to survive to get ashore.


As far as the "back and forth" movement of plates, where is your evidence that they are osculating?  With respect to your comment of looking at a small window, that may be the case, but there is evidence that the extrapolation of movement is valid, as evidenced in the elevation of the Himalayas and the fossil record and rock layering indicate.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

The observed similarity between African and South American coastlines was only the trigger for exploration into the theory Thermal Detonator is referring to the lithological between the east coast of SA and the west coast of Africa.
South America-Africa

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?

The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

Quote from: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 09:55:22 AM

The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.

Thank you for the ultimate Africa video of wildebeests crossing a creek. I was thinking more of raging rivers, mountains, canyons. It seems a little easier for a dinosaur to cross an ocean than these obstacles, wouldn't you agree?
I would not agree that it would be easier for a terrestial animal to cross thousands of miles of open water, than for terrestrial endeavors like crossing a river, following a canyon for a narrowing or a mountain range for reduction in height or finding an available mountain pass.
The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel. They would not have to bring food as they would devour their fallen comrades during the voyage. (Objection! Speculation!) I think this is more logical and supported than your theories of canyon leaping dinosaurs. Nice logic. How would you respond if I stated they would just "go around" the ocean? Since a canyon and a river have narrow/shallow points I would point out how you are drawing a false corollary between my example and yours whereby you provide a term, which by it's bounds does not provide a path around.
Had you been paying attention the claim is that the dinosaurs in question, did in fact bring both food and water, as well as "livestock" (herbiverous livestock), which would need it's own unique food source.


"The extrapolation of movement is valid." So if a plane were to disembark, you would look at the first few ascending minutes of the flight and conclude it would be in space in a matter of hours? Your logic is fundamentally flawed. You demand I provide evidence but I think your theory is the one that requires evidence. My theory is a little more plausible than your illusions of moving land masses.

1)Usually when one does not copy a complete quote and takes it out of context one is to start and/or end said quote with (...) indicating to the reader that the quote is in fact lacking its entirety.
2)The full quote was

Quote

As far as the "back and forth" movement of plates, where is your evidence that they are osculating?  With respect to your comment of looking at a small window, that may be the case, but there is evidence that the extrapolation of movement is valid, as evidenced in the elevation of the Himalayas and the fossil record and rock layering indicate.

3)Since we have a good deal of knowledge on the path of flights and the predefined components thereof (take-off, ascent, cruise, descent, landing) there would be no such reason to make any such prediction, again you are drawing a false corollary.  However, if you were to ask if, for a life raft adrift at sea, if it would make sense to chart its course over time based on initial readings of trajectory, and knowledge of the currents directing it, then yes it would be valid.

4)It is not your theory, you are merely parroting the words prior in this post and dreamt by James, while failing to contribute anything substantial to the argument and have in no way provided any supporting data to further the credibility of the author of the idea that is being discussed.  For your distaste for blindly accepting what has been said, you sure are blindly parroting what has been said.

The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 07, 2009, 06:16:04 PM

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?

1. The only denigration that could be construed from my post is "you know next to nothing about geology". That is not an insult, merely a statement of truth. If you wish to dispute it, please present a summary of all you know about geology.
2. How can you be "losing patience with my ignorant ramblings" when this is my only response to you in this thread?
3. You want to know who performs these tests and measurements? Geologists. Again, proof you know next to nothing about geology, which is the study of the earth's substance and rocks, and is performed by geologists.
4. Look at this picture:

Observe how well South America and Africa fit together - with a little tilt one way or the other the coastlines can slot together almost perfectly. That they don't fit exactly now is down to millions of years of erosion and compression/expansion of the landmasses. You think this is coincidence?

The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

Quote from: markjo on December 08, 2009, 10:13:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 09:55:22 AM

The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.

"But did YOU measure it? No? Well that's proof that it isn't growing at all!"

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 09:39:24 AM

The disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory, in part, proves the "clumping theory" was the method of choice used by dinosaurs for transoceanic travel.

You just fucked up big time. The reason why there is a "disproportionate amount of fossilized dinosaur remains in sub-oceanic territory" can easily explained by something even you will find hard to deny - it is much, much easier for an organism to fossilize on the sea floor than on land.

Sediment from higher up in the water falls down on the striped carcass, eventually forming a tight pack around the skeleton. As more pressure is applied over thousands of years, the organic material that is left is replaced by inorganic rock. This is what we know of as a fossil.

Out of water, the carcass is open to be completely disintegrated by scavengers and erosion. Also, sediments don't fall from above to encase it.

Of course fossils can also occur in tar pits and frozen in glaciers, but not very many at all due to how perfect the conditions must be.

2. My staff tells me that this is an interpretation issue. Try this - I have tried to be patient with the participants in this thread. If my point is not coming across correctly please be patient with my English.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 09:39:24 AM

I would not agree that it would be easier for a terrestial animal to cross thousands of miles of open water, than for terrestrial endeavors like crossing a river, following a canyon for a narrowing or a mountain range for reduction in height or finding an available mountain pass.

we may have to agree to disagree on this point then. I think the evidence and logic speak for itself. By the way, it's "terrestrial".

 (Objection! Speculation!)

Much unlike the speculation of your "land migration" theory or the theory of "continental drift"? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]

Since a canyon and a river have narrow/shallow points I would point out how you are drawing a false corollary between my example and yours whereby you provide a term, which by it's bounds does not provide a path around.
Had you been paying attention the claim is that the dinosaurs in question, did in fact bring both food and water, as well as "livestock" (herbiverous livestock), which would need it's own unique food source.

Redundant - see previous responses.

4)It is not your theory, you are merely parroting the words prior in this post and dreamt by James, while failing to contribute anything substantial to the argument and have in no way provided any supporting data to further the credibility of the author of the idea that is being discussed.  For your distaste for blindly accepting what has been said, you sure are blindly parroting what has been said.[/b]

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 11:29:11 AM

2. My staff tells me that this is an interpretation issue. Try this - I have tried to be patient with the participants in this thread. If my point is not coming across correctly please be patient with my English.

No problem with your English at all.  Out of curiosity, what is your field and what country/area of the world?

Quote from: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 10:32:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 08, 2009, 10:13:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 09:55:22 AM

The fact that the Himalayas exist, and are measurably growing by about a centimetre a year, is a nice bit of extra evidence supporting continental drift.

Not to mention the mid-Atlantic rift that runs right through Iceland is measurably growing as well.

"But did YOU measure it? No? Well that's proof that it isn't growing at all!"

Thank you Robert, your post posits an interesting question. I fully rely on independently verifiable data from uninfluenced sources. I am aware that mountains "grow" although I see no correlation between the rising of a mountain and proof that continents dance to other sides of the world and, according to Thermal Detonator, twist and shout [interpreters note - he is referencing the song twist and shout while doing the dance].

Ever heard of the word sarcasm, Robert was pointing out how that's what allot of flat earth believers respond to facts like that in a sarcastic manor.
It is well established that the Himalayas grow.

Now I shall enlighten you as to why moving continents are related to rising mountains.

By looking at where earthquakes appear most frequently on a map you can see they form distinct lines, these are the boundaries of tectonic plates and earthquakes are caused by the friction and movement between them, mountains at boundaries are where the rock crushes together and forces upwards due to the pressure. By studying the movement of continents with lasers ect we can work out at which boundaries continents are moving towards each other and which apart, this correlates with mountain patterns, where continents move together there is always large mountain chains formed.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 10:35:45 AM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 09:39:24 AM

I would not agree that it would be easier for a terrestial animal to cross thousands of miles of open water, than for terrestrial endeavors like crossing a river, following a canyon for a narrowing or a mountain range for reduction in height or finding an available mountain pass.

we may have to agree to disagree on this point then. I think the evidence and logic speak for itself. By the way, it's "terrestrial".

 (Objection! Speculation!)

Much unlike the speculation of your "land migration" theory or the theory of "continental drift"? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]

Since a canyon and a river have narrow/shallow points I would point out how you are drawing a false corollary between my example and yours whereby you provide a term, which by it's bounds does not provide a path around.
Had you been paying attention the claim is that the dinosaurs in question, did in fact bring both food and water, as well as "livestock" (herbiverous livestock), which would need it's own unique food source.

Redundant - see previous responses.

4)It is not your theory, you are merely parroting the words prior in this post and dreamt by James, while failing to contribute anything substantial to the argument and have in no way provided any supporting data to further the credibility of the author of the idea that is being discussed.  For your distaste for blindly accepting what has been said, you sure are blindly parroting what has been said.[/b]

I assure you that my conclusions are based on facts in evidence. Yours are based on speculative theory. I challenge you to find an area where I have "parroted" James. Yours is a science of consensus. Mine is a science of evaluation of data.

...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...  

The problem is that is is scientifically accepted fact that the moving continents cause mountain chains, ask any top scientist and they will agree and no they are not being paid off by the government to keep it a secret.

future scientists may prove today's wrong

they wont disagree with tectonic plates as we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates

http://media.photobucket.com/image/moved%20tectonic%20plates%20underwater%20boxing%20day/anandtech/sonar-photo-sea-bed.jpg

hope that's enough with a little light googleing much more evidence can be found.

Gravity is no magical force it has been explained very well, please don't try and say it hasn't I study Physics the FE's believe in Einsteins E=MC^2, energy and mass are interchangeable, energy travels in straight lines yet it poses wave quality's, this is as it distorts space around it in a wave like manor. Mass also poses this property it distorts space around it and other mass mass therefore is drawn towards it, think of it as two balls on a table cloth held up loosely at all 4 corners moving together, except space is in 3D.

Thus since all mass attracts other mass it clumps together in spherical shapes, the earth is simply a clump of mass.

"I don't have a video of plate moving" current post.

[interpreters note - he will not respond but has instructed me to provide the following]

From your previous post "we have phsicaly seen the movements of tectonic plates"

[interpreters note - he also said you misspelled physically. You have lost all credibility with him. You should not have lied about the video.]

1. I will let my various publications, accolades and credentials in the professional community speak for my knowledge.

4. your "proof" is a picture where South America is obviously tilted and twisted. If I turn it upside down and put large floppy ears on it, it is a bunny rabbit [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic]. If you are allowed to perform continental gymnastics on one area of the world then you are the one living in "Pangea". Are you seriously presenting this obviously bastardized [interpreters note - does not translate well, perhaps manipulated to fit a specific purpose] picture as "proof" of continental drifting? And you question my intelligence? All I can say is WOW!

So no, we can't prove it to you, with your irrationally high standards of evidence which seem to be "It does not happen if I don't see it directly before me".