James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 08:48:13 AM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:33:19 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 08, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

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?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.

I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.

A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.

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

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 08:48:13 AM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:33:19 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 08, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

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?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.

I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.

A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.

Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 09:02:42 AM

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

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 08:48:13 AM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:33:19 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 08, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

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?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.

I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.

A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.

Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?

Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 09:02:42 AM

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

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 08:48:13 AM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:33:19 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 08, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

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?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.

I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.

A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.

Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?

Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 09:10:58 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 09:02:42 AM

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

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 08:48:13 AM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:33:19 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 08, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

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?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.

I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.

A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.

Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?

Incredibly slightly, but I still wouldn't believe you. There was never any evidence that whatever continent was a rabbit, whereas with the Continental Drift, at least we can measure now that they have been moving away. Continental drift has some sort of base which makes your rabbit analogy silly at best.

You keep regurgitating the same argument. Once again, you are applying the movement measured over a period of less than 100 years to a time period in excess of three billion years. This is not science.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 09:10:58 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 09:02:42 AM

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

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 08:48:13 AM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:33:19 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 08, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

However, I have only been pointed to only one possible "match" being South America and Africa and I see, while close, it does not fit in a consistent manner. When you review the maps more closely, the they do not fit at all. I am aware of the other potential "matches" and do not agree they match at all. You have (as someone previously stated about my discussion) "cherry-picked" one instance and use it to claim proof that they were in fact together.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 08, 2009, 09:40:34 AM

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?

Thermal Detonator gave a reason as to why South America and Africa don't fit perfectly now, and you seemed to skip over that. Cherry-picking arguments brought up?

By manipulating the picture, I can make Australia appear to fit nicely in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not science.

I don't think the act of messing with the picture was claimed to be science, so no argument there. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.
Also, TD stated clearly what he did with the image to give an idea of what may have happened. Again, I don't think he claimed the action of manipulating a picture to be science.

The picture was used to illustrate a preconceived notion of the existence of "Pangea"; Neverland as it is know in FET circles. You state that this was used to "give an idea of what may have happened." I am simply stating it "may" have happened another way. I could "manipulate" the continent to have bunny ears and call it a rabbit. You would dismiss this immediately as I am dismissing your argument. Consider this exercise a failure.

A translation and rotation of a picture isn't the same as adding bunny ears to a picture.

Would it be acceptable to you if I used various island chains for the bunny ears?

Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

I've always thought east Asia and western Europe would slot together quite nicely, and that Australia would slot sideways into the west coast of America or upside down into the bottom of Africa without too much fuss. Greenland would probably fit into the west coast of America too.


Conclusion: playing jigsaw with the Earth proves nothing.

Come on then Wilmore, lets see some pictures of this and see if they fit as well as South America and Africa?

Quote from: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 10:30:12 AM

Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:49:54 AM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 10:30:12 AM

Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.

I was simply illustrating the faulty logic used by JBJosh. 

If dinosaurs never traversed the ocean then their fossil record in said oceans would not exist. This is not the case. Much like ants form a boat made out of their own bodies, the fossil record suggests that dinosaurs did this as well. This negates the need for bringing livestock as they ate their fallen friends.

Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.

They won't frown on him, he's on the flat side. 

Quote from: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 11:21:55 AM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:49:54 AM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 10:30:12 AM

Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.

I was simply illustrating the faulty logic used by JBJosh. 

If dinosaurs never traversed the ocean then their fossil record in said oceans would not exist. This is not the case. Much like ants form a boat made out of their own bodies, the fossil record suggests that dinosaurs did this as well. This negates the need for bringing livestock as they ate their fallen friends.

Lets see:
1)Dinosaurs aren't ants.
2) Which ants cross the ocean intentionally on these rafts and which cling together for survival?
3) Which ants eat the others as sustenance on their ocean journey?
4) The fossil record suggests a certain distribution of fossils. You are inferring a dino-tilla as the vehicle for this distribution-sans fact.
5) You never provided the species of bird that crossed the ocean in their nest puprose built for travel.
6) You must have not read up on James' theory that we have been debating prior to your arrival.
7) You are close to an ocean(allegedly), why don't you try lashing together 10 or so dead cows and set sail for the land down under and see how far that raft takes you before it gets eaten.
Hint:

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 11:49:20 AM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 11:21:55 AM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:49:54 AM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 10:30:12 AM

Would it be acceptable to you to stop being an alt and start contributing?

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

I'll take that as a no.
Also, you are the one claiming ocean going dinos.
Posts about continents with bunny ears are considered to be low content and are usually frowned upon.

I was simply illustrating the faulty logic used by JBJosh. 

If dinosaurs never traversed the ocean then their fossil record in said oceans would not exist. This is not the case. Much like ants form a boat made out of their own bodies, the fossil record suggests that dinosaurs did this as well. This negates the need for bringing livestock as they ate their fallen friends.

Lets see:
1)Dinosaurs aren't ants.
2) Which ants cross the ocean intentionally on these rafts and which cling together for survival?
3) Which ants eat the others as sustenance on their ocean journey?
4) The fossil record suggests a certain distribution of fossils. You are inferring a dino-tilla as the vehicle for this distribution-sans fact.
5) You never provided the species of bird that crossed the ocean in their nest puprose built for travel.
6) You must have not read up on James' theory that we have been debating prior to your arrival.
7) You are close to an ocean(allegedly), why don't you try lashing together 10 or so dead cows and set sail for the land down under and see how far that raft takes you before it gets eaten.
Hint:

1) Excellent observation.
2) Why don't you ask one.
3) See 2) above.
4) Is is common knowledge that dinosaur fossils are highly concentrated in sub-oceanic waters.
5)
6) I speak for myself. I am not a parrot.
7) Dinosaurs were not prey, their meat was not preferred.

Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.

The image for 5) was not uploaded previously. I will try again.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfloating%2Bnest%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=500&h=332&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F2368%2F2341860554_93520e20a6.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdallaz%2F2341860554%2F&size=162k&name=Floating+nest&p=floating+nest&oid=052be57ed47b9fae&fr2=tab-web&fusr=garys+pics&no=7&tt=580&sigr=11fnu57df&sigi=11gdnb5n5&sigb=12vhdv6et

Dinosaurs were prey. The carnivorous ones ate the herbivorous and smaller carnivorous ones. There is fossil evidence of this too.

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.

1) Activity along the plates does not confirm drifting.
2) Says who?
3) The evidence suggests otherwise. What about the strata in Iceland being almost identical to strata located in Australia?
4) I assume you observed this? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic] There are many other theories that use the same evidence you use but reach different conclusions.
5) It is not the size that matters, but how you use it.
6) Why would you expect this?
7) The myth of continental drift is widely discredited by objective scientists around the world. Just because you cannot see them does not mean they do not exist. If you think there are only four of us, you are sadly mistaken.

We are still waiting for you to show us some research that is not just a quick browse in Wikipedia. You are saying all the time that there are "many other theories", theories that are "widely discredited by objective scientists", "many other theories that use the same evidence", and so on. Where are those objective scientists? What are their names? What other theories are there that discredit continental drifting? (the kind we all know about, that is, with continents moving thousands of kilometers, that is).

While many details about the exact way continental drifting occurs are hotly debated, I know of just a handful of "scientists" that reject continental drifting altogether: James, Adolf and Wilmore. Where are the rest? You say there are many other theories. What are they?

Just so you start reading real science, try this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract. Like so many others, it explains how the geomagnetic reversals show how the continental drifting has occurred for millenia. If your speculation were true, you would not be able to find a continuous geological record of the creation of land close to the main geological hotspots ranging eons.

And, yes, you can see how (just as an example) several species of bipedal carnivores, all similar to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, appear in every continent, with the possible exception of Antarctica. By comparing the different anatomical differences and dating of strata where the fossils were found we can see how they all came from common ancestors. But of course, you know this since you work in Evolutionary studies and therefore have read extensively about the subject. Or... have you?

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 08:30:31 AM

1) Activity along the plates does not confirm drifting.
2) Says who?
3) The evidence suggests otherwise. What about the strata in Iceland being almost identical to strata located in Australia?
4) I assume you observed this? [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic] There are many other theories that use the same evidence you use but reach different conclusions.
5) It is not the size that matters, but how you use it.
6) Why would you expect this?
7) The myth of continental drift is widely discredited by objective scientists around the world. Just because you cannot see them does not mean they do not exist. If you think there are only four of us, you are sadly mistaken.

We are still waiting for you to show us some research that is not just a quick browse in Wikipedia. You are saying all the time that there are "many other theories", theories that are "widely discredited by objective scientists", "many other theories that use the same evidence", and so on. Where are those objective scientists? What are their names? What other theories are there that discredit continental drifting? (the kind we all know about, that is, with continents moving thousands of kilometers, that is).

While many details about the exact way continental drifting occurs are hotly debated, I know of just a handful of "scientists" that reject continental drifting altogether: James, Adolf and Wilmore. Where are the rest? You say there are many other theories. What are they?

Just so you start reading real science, try this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119383776/abstract. Like so many others, it explains how the geomagnetic reversals show how the continental drifting has occurred for millenia. If your speculation were true, you would not be able to find a continuous geological record of the creation of land close to the main geological hotspots ranging eons.

And, yes, you can see how (just as an example) several species of bipedal carnivores, all similar to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, appear in every continent, with the possible exception of Antarctica. By comparing the different anatomical differences and dating of strata where the fossils were found we can see how they all came from common ancestors. But of course, you know this since you work in Evolutionary studies and therefore have read extensively about the subject. Or... have you?

I assure you that none of my research is from "Wikipedia".

Opponents of continental drift include the reputable J. D. Dana, Scheidigger, V.V. Beloussov, Steven Dutch...how many do you require? The primary theories are that the continents have always been stationary or, the theory to which I ascribe, "settle" in the Earth.

I read you article, very amusing but full of errors and admitted unavailability of data. Then I recognized the author, William Lowrie. William Lowrie makes his living from EarthRef.org. Don't you think his "research" is a little biased?

Of course I am aware that several dinosaur species share common ancestors and are also located around the world. Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

By the way, I have never received a response for the extrapolation of less than one hundred years of continental movement to a period exceeding three billion years. My question is, is this science? I await your responses.

Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:49:54 AM

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:50:57 PM

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:16:51 PM

Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]

Quote from: lawton27 on December 09, 2009, 02:19:03 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:16:51 PM

Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 02:27:51 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:49:54 AM

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:50:57 PM

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:31:10 PM

Quote from: lawton27 on December 09, 2009, 02:19:03 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:16:51 PM

Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:29:44 PM

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 02:27:51 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:49:54 AM

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:50:57 PM

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]

Quote from: lawton27 on December 09, 2009, 02:35:10 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:31:10 PM

Quote from: lawton27 on December 09, 2009, 02:19:03 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:16:51 PM

Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:29:44 PM

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 02:27:51 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:49:54 AM

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:50:57 PM

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]

The word 'saw' does not mean there is a video of it, if I had used the word 'filmed' then the meaning would be totally different.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:45:18 PM

Quote from: lawton27 on December 09, 2009, 02:35:10 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:31:10 PM

Quote from: lawton27 on December 09, 2009, 02:19:03 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:16:51 PM

Continental drifting is not the only plausible explanation for this.

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:29:44 PM

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 02:27:51 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:49:54 AM

I am not the one using the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. I am not the one ridiculously extrapolating continental "movement".

Hold on. You said this before:

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 03:50:57 PM

I never said the continents did not move.

Keep failing alt.

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

Well the actually move in straight lines in given directions away from the super continent they once combined to make. not quite twisting and dancing. Unless your favorite dance move is the straight line.

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]

The word 'saw' does not mean there is a video of it, if I had used the word 'filmed' then the meaning would be totally different.

[interpreters note - I will discuss this with him and tell him it may have been an interpretation issue.]

Please continue I am keen to hear this wonderful and plausible explanation.
[/quote]

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will not speak to you. You should not have lied about the video.]
[/quote]

I did not lie not once did I mention a video, I mentioned that there is proof that two places moved because we saw them before the jolt and then after, surprise surprise after they had moved.
You misunderstood me and are trying to twist my words to degrade my argument, rather than admit you misunderstood me.



[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]
[/quote]

The word 'saw' does not mean there is a video of it, if I had used the word 'filmed' then the meaning would be totally different.
[/quote]

[interpreters note - I will discuss this with him and tell him it may have been an interpretation issue.]
[/quote]

[Interpreters note - Dr. Einholm will converse with you provided you not state that you possess video evidence of continental movement. He is about to leave for a speaking engagement now and will entertain your questions tomorrow. Just a note, he will not read anything you post prior to tomorrow morning. (This is the first time in three years I have witnessed the Doctor recant his position. I am so confused. This is not like him at all.)]

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

I'm not sure what you're argument is now.

If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]

[note to interpreter]  How do you interpret for him if he speaks German and you speak only Spanish and English?
Also, since the good doctor is so keen to point things out; your note, as it belongs to you, is possessive and requires an apostrophe.

Does Bishop have the patience for an alt like this?  Saddam maybe (haven't been around long enough to know one when I see one).

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:29:44 PM

You are making no sense. "Settling" of the earth is movement. I just do not ascribe to the twisting and dancing of the continents around the world.

I'm not sure what you're argument is now.

If there's something moving the continents then when and where did this movement start?

I have already addressed this within the thread. See previous posts.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 02:45:18 PM

[interpreters note - Dr. Einholm says you are a liar. Actually I recall you mentioning you "saw" the movement. He is cursing in German (I think, I just speak Spanish and English). Once you lie to him he will not converse with you any more.]

[note to interpreter]  How do you interpret for him if he speaks German and you speak only Spanish and English?
Also, since the good doctor is so keen to point things out; your note, as it belongs to you, is possessive and requires an apostrophe.

Does Bishop have the patience for an alt like this?  Saddam maybe (haven't been around long enough to know one when I see one).

[Interpreters note - The Doctor just left for a speaking engagement. He speaks limited English, which requires my assistance, Spanish, German and Hindi. The Doctor is very diligent in his linguistic studies. He finds it to be an educational exercise to analyze mistakes used. He says he uses them to learn. I suspect he is an ass in any language. I see you using the word "alt". I am not familiar with this and have not interpreted it to the Doctor. What does it mean? Also, please do not reply with my notes in your response. I would hate to be on the receiving end of the Doctors wrath. He is very respected in my city.]