James's theory on dinosaurs

[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.]

Why not just ask the good doctor in Spanish if he was just swearing in German?

Alt means alternate, adolf einholm = James

Does the doctor beat you when you are insubordinate?

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.

Lets see every author you mention, one by one:

• J. D. Dana: His main works were done in the mid to late 19th century, when continental drift was not even a theory
• Scheidigger: His objections were made around 1974, when continental drift was slowly gaining momentum. I have not seen any objections published recently by him.
• Beloussov: Same as Scheidigger. He published his reservations decades before the best evidence for continental drift was adecuately developed.
• Steven Dutch: Same as before. In his own web page there is no mention at all of his reservations towards continental drift, so I can only suspect he has changed his mind.

It is easy to make a list of geologists that did not embrace the theory of continental drift. You just find those who published their works before 1990. Where are your geologists that have reservations against the theory today?

Scientists have no trouble at all with accepting new theories as they become well developed and supported by evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble understanding the scientific method.

You can read the book "The rejection of continental drift: theory and method in American earth science" By Naomi Oreskes to understand just a little bit of how one scientific speculation became scientific theory.

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.

You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.

If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.

The word you're looking for is "theropod", but you're excused

Yes, the term is Theropod, and they were quite ubiquitus, from North America to South America and India and South Africa. And they were quite successful during all of the Mesozoic, so your nice little speculation about some intelligent dinosaur from the Cretaceous cannot explain how the theropods spread through most of the world during the Triassic.

There is no single species of theropod, or of any other animal, for that matter, that is found in every part of the planet, as you pretend me to show. That is a total misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. You should study a little bit about evolution before coming up with intelligent dinosaurs making boats.

Quote from: James on December 09, 2009, 03:56:18 PM

The word you're looking for is "theropod", but you're excused

Yes, the term is Theropod, and they were quite ubiquitus, from North America to South America and India and South Africa. And they were quite successful during all of the Mesozoic, so your nice little speculation about some intelligent dinosaur from the Cretaceous cannot explain how the theropods spread through most of the world during the Triassic.

There is no single species of theropod, or of any other animal, for that matter, that is found in every part of the planet, as you pretend me to show. That is a total misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. You should study a little bit about evolution before coming up with intelligent dinosaurs making boats.

Well I've specifically explained the anthropology of dromaeosaurae at an earlier point in this thread. Would you like me to do the same for every other type of theropod? I'm unwilling to make sweeping generalisations, but I will gladly work through the evidence with you on a case-by-case basis.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 03:19:25 PM

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 03:05:26 PM

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.

No you haven't. All you've posted is a lot of refuting and a lot of interpreters notes.

And this:

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 08, 2009, 02:25:20 PM

I do believe tectonic plates move. I just do not believe they walk across the Earth, twisting and turning.

No scientist believes the plates "walk" or "dance" so lets ditch that descriptive.

But you've not explained the when, where or why. The reason I ask is that it would be very peculiar indeed if the earth started shifting as soon as we started measuring for shift, which is why you seem to be arguing.

I have stated from the beginning that I believe, much like the concrete foundation of a home settles, the continents settle, moving back and forth. What your scientists are measuring is the back, or forth, movement over a short period of time and extrapolating it over a three billion year time frame. This is ridiculous. I have stated this before so your "No you haven't argument" is absurd. Would you like me to quote the matter from my previous posts?

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:47:03 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 09:17:51 AM

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.

I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.

Do you honestly believe it is science to take continental movement from a period of less than one hundred years and extrapolate it to a period of over three billion years?

"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.

Danka James. I have learned a new word used here, "alt". I believe several of these "alts" have been ignoring the obvious and bombarding me with redundant emails. I now understand their strategy, if they repeat themselves then denigrate you, it furthers their "science". Good luck and I welcome the support.

Quote from: James on December 09, 2009, 03:56:18 PM

"Vielen dank" to Dr Einholm for holding down the fort here, I'm glad the regulars are not the only academics who are prepared to challenge and refute the ridiculous Pangea hypothesis. Welcome to the fold, doctor.

Yes. It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!

Welcome "Dr Einholm".

I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries. I am afraid it is your obtuse mind that refuses to interpret evidence correctly. Perhaps if you denigrate me further it will validate your science.

Quote from: adolf eichmann on December 09, 2009, 01:40:06 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 09, 2009, 01:37:56 PM

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.

I would imagine a shark would quite happily attack a baby icthyosaur or plesiosaur.

Are we really supposed to believe "Dr Einholm" and his interpreter who can't speak German are real people and not the same fifteen year old having a laugh? Well, James believes it so automatically I am suspicious.

Nice imagination.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 03:25:56 PM

[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.]

Why not just ask the good doctor in Spanish if he was just swearing in German?

Alt means alternate, adolf einholm = James

Does the doctor beat you when you are insubordinate?

I could use your "alt" argument for the various characters you are presenting here. So your logic is 1) when defeated intellectually resort to personal attacks. Well done.

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

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.

Lets see every author you mention, one by one:

• J. D. Dana: His main works were done in the mid to late 19th century, when continental drift was not even a theory
• Scheidigger: His objections were made around 1974, when continental drift was slowly gaining momentum. I have not seen any objections published recently by him.
• Beloussov: Same as Scheidigger. He published his reservations decades before the best evidence for continental drift was adecuately developed.
• Steven Dutch: Same as before. In his own web page there is no mention at all of his reservations towards continental drift, so I can only suspect he has changed his mind.

It is easy to make a list of geologists that did not embrace the theory of continental drift. You just find those who published their works before 1990. Where are your geologists that have reservations against the theory today?

Scientists have no trouble at all with accepting new theories as they become well developed and supported by evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble understanding the scientific method.

You can read the book "The rejection of continental drift: theory and method in American earth science" By Naomi Oreskes to understand just a little bit of how one scientific speculation became scientific theory.

I wonder how Naomi Oreskes earns her money? Your reliance on biased data is strangling your theory.

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

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.

You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.

If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.

There are consistent strata therefore continental drifting occurred. Or is it, continental drifting occurred therefore there are consistent strata? There are several examples of "matching" strata throughout the world that negate your use of this as evidence.

There is absolutely no measurement of continental drifting over tens of millions of years. This is absurd.

Well I've specifically explained the anthropology of dromaeosaurae at an earlier point in this thread. Would you like me to do the same for every other type of theropod? I'm unwilling to make sweeping generalisations, but I will gladly work through the evidence with you on a case-by-case basis.

I really am interested in the anthropology of non-humans. I am even interested in the zoology of humans. Please send me a copy of your published data so I can ask Webster's to change their definition of "anthropology" to say "the study of humans and dromaeosaurae". But please send the copies before noon, I have to take my child to the vet.

Please work with me a few cases on a case-by-case basis, some from the Triassic, some from the Jurassic and none from the Cretaceous, since you have talked enough about the dromeosaurus.

I wonder how Naomi Oreskes earns her money? Your reliance on biased data is strangling your theory.

Does Naomi Orestes force you to not find current studies that contradict Continental Drift? Or maybe William Lowrie and the evil EarthRef.org pay every geologist to keep The Conspiracy alive? But, please do not be afraid, risk your life and get us a paper or two that found their way around the Conspiracy. And they are out there, you just have to venture outside of Wikipedia.

You were doing so well, mentioning information that is not directly in Wikipedia for the first time, that you deserve a second chance. And write your findings in your will, so they are brought to the public as soon as the The Conspiracy kills you.

Quote from: trig on December 09, 2009, 08:36:17 PM

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

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.

You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.

If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.

There are consistent strata therefore continental drifting occurred. Or is it, continental drifting occurred therefore there are consistent strata? There are several examples of "matching" strata throughout the world that negate your use of this as evidence.

There is absolutely no measurement of continental drifting over tens of millions of years. This is absurd.

Please learn about radioactive dating. What you consider absurd or not does not change the science of Geology, but the continuous layering of solidified lava over millions of years in places close to the geological hotspots does give ample evidence for continental drift over millions of years.

"This is absurd" is not a valid scientific argument.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:11:35 AM

I wonder how Naomi Oreskes earns her money? Your reliance on biased data is strangling your theory.

Does Naomi Orestes force you to not find current studies that contradict Continental Drift? Or maybe William Lowrie and the evil EarthRef.org pay every geologist to keep The Conspiracy alive? But, please do not be afraid, risk your life and get us a paper or two that found their way around the Conspiracy. And they are out there, you just have to venture outside of Wikipedia.

You were doing so well, mentioning information that is not directly in Wikipedia for the first time, that you deserve a second chance. And write your findings in your will, so they are brought to the public as soon as the The Conspiracy kills you.

I am fully aware of the arguments and "evidence" for continental dancing (or drift as you call it). It is amusing when I hear "if you just move South America closer to Africa and twist it this way then move the bottom closer to Africa and tilt the continent a little more on the Northern side..." this is not science.

Also, taking the measurements from a period of less than one hundred years and applying it to a period exceeding three billion years is absurd. Any objective person would agree with this.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:14:12 AM

Quote from: trig on December 09, 2009, 08:36:17 PM

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

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.

You have received the response, you are not able to accept that you are just plain wrong. The geological strata that has been found and documented in places near geological hotspots show a continuous accumulation of new layers, exactly as the CD theory predicts. It also shows the succesive magnetic reversals indicating how this effect is periodic and has occurred for millenia. There is no extrapolation of a hundred years into millions, there is clear data of tens of millions of years.

If your speculation was true, the stable continents, would either leave no accumulation of strata or would erase the old strata every time the direction in which the tectonic plates move changes.

There are consistent strata therefore continental drifting occurred. Or is it, continental drifting occurred therefore there are consistent strata? There are several examples of "matching" strata throughout the world that negate your use of this as evidence.

There is absolutely no measurement of continental drifting over tens of millions of years. This is absurd.

Please learn about radioactive dating. What you consider absurd or not does not change the science of Geology, but the continuous layering of solidified lava over millions of years in places close to the geological hotspots does give ample evidence for continental drift over millions of years.

"This is absurd" is not a valid scientific argument.

Radioactive dating is absolutely invalid. The decay rates used as the basis for this testing uses the same logic of extrapolation as you use to validate your continental movement for three billion years.  It seems faulty extrapolation is the key to your continental drift theory.

I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.

No, the world hasn't believed that dinosaurs built galleons and sailed the oceans. Ever.

Perhaps if you denigrate me further it will validate your science.

I'm not denigrating, merely pointing out the obviously ridiculous notion that a doctor hires an interpreter so that he can post rants in an obscure subforum of an obscure internet site. This is increased dramatically when it's noted how quickly he gets up to speed on the subject.

There are other reasons I could go into about why the "german doctor posting through a translator" is a charade (for those that hadn't guessed it already), but I'd risk posting personal information.

Lets leave it at "no one is convinced".

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:06:52 AM

I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.

No, the world hasn't believed that dinosaurs built galleons and sailed the oceans. Ever.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:06:52 AM

Perhaps if you denigrate me further it will validate your science.

I'm not denigrating, merely pointing out the obviously ridiculous notion that a doctor hires an interpreter so that he can post rants in an obscure subforum of an obscure internet site. This is increased dramatically when it's noted how quickly he gets up to speed on the subject.

There are other reasons I could go into about why the "german doctor posting through a translator" is a charade (for those that hadn't guessed it already), but I'd risk posting personal information.

Lets leave it at "no one is convinced".

I was speaking to the discussion of a flat earth. The entire world believed this for centuries. You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.

As a side note to your musings, my interpreter's primary responsibilities are to assist me in my research and communications with English speaking publications, Universities, etc. Believe what you like, it matters not.

I was speaking to the discussion of a flat earth.

No you weren't.

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 04:03:26 PM

It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!

I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.

As a side note to your musings, my interpreter's primary responsibilities are to assist me in my research and communications with English speaking publications, Universities, etc.

Sure.

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:47:03 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 09:17:51 AM

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.

I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.

Do you honestly believe it is science to take continental movement from a period of less than one hundred years and extrapolate it to a period of over three billion years?

Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:01:27 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 09, 2009, 10:47:03 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 09, 2009, 09:17:51 AM

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.

I'm not regurgitating. That's why I said that they have been measured now, and didn't say I've seen them move in the past. I said that Continental Drift has some sort of evidence to suggest that maybe it could have happened, making your bunny analogy worthless because it isn't based on anything measurable.

Do you honestly believe it is science to take continental movement from a period of less than one hundred years and extrapolate it to a period of over three billion years?

Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.

If it is science to believe in extrapolation then why is it not acceptable to believe that a dinosaur can make a floating nest or clump with other dinosaurs as lesser developed species do. If you accept extrapolation as science you must also accept this. You cannot have it both ways.

As for the land masses appearing to "fit". I hardly believe your one example of South America and Africa almost fitting with significant manipulation is concrete enough. You are playing with a jigsaw puzzle.

Using your same "evidence" I find the fossil record supports dinosaurs migrating to the different continents over the ocean.

You are simply stating that your theory is the only explanation for the evidence. I, and many others, disagree.

Your definition of science is flawed.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 08:44:26 AM

I was speaking to the discussion of a flat earth.

No you weren't.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 07:06:52 AM

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 09, 2009, 04:03:26 PM

It's amazing how someone can join the forum and immediately start posting in one obscure thread in favour of a bizarre tale which has little if anything to do with flat earth. What a fast learner!

I let the evidence speak for itself. My understanding was that this thread relates to a theory on Dinosaurs, not FE. What you call "bizarre" has been believed by the world for centuries.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 08:44:26 AM

As a side note to your musings, my interpreter's primary responsibilities are to assist me in my research and communications with English speaking publications, Universities, etc.

Sure.

What you know as "James theory" here has been discussed for decades as the "Transoceanic Migration Theory". Just because the subject might not be included in your "wikipedia" does not mean it does not exist.

"No you weren't" - this is an excellent response. Keep up the good work LiceFarm [interpreters note - he is being sarcastic.]

Quote from: JBJosh on December 10, 2009, 08:59:07 AM

Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.

If it is science to believe in extrapolation then why is it not acceptable to believe that a dinosaur can make a floating nest or clump with other dinosaurs as lesser developed species do. If you accept extrapolation as science you must also accept this. You cannot have it both ways.

As for the land masses appearing to "fit". I hardly believe your one example of South America and Africa almost fitting with significant manipulation is concrete enough. You are playing with a jigsaw puzzle.

Using your same "evidence" I find the fossil record supports dinosaurs migrating to the different continents over the ocean.

You are simply stating that your theory is the only explanation for the evidence. I, and many others, disagree.

Your definition of science is flawed.

I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.

Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.

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.

1) 2) and 3) you can't support.
4) Still inferring sans fact.
5) Your image is of a coot.  The coot's nest is anchored to a foundation which touches the ground.
6) Ca-Caw
7) See 4 and below.

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.

See above picture.

You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.

So you are implying that someone who would proclaim that dinosaurs used any type of sophisticated ship and sailed the oceans is idiotic and has no perception of what could and couldn't happen?

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 09:07:43 AM

Quote from: JBJosh on December 10, 2009, 08:59:07 AM

Yes. First off, if we had to do this to your expectations, we'd need a time machine to finally make this science.
Second off, we're using this data, combined with other data of fossilized animals and plants, landforms, rocks as someone else pointed out, and we extrapolated back and found that that would make sense if the continents have been moving and fit at one point. Continental Drift is not evidence, the fossils and the landforms and the shape of continents and numerous other otherwise unexplained sets of data is the evidence. Continental Drift fits all of this to provide a theory, without disregarding sets of data, and that is science.

If it is science to believe in extrapolation then why is it not acceptable to believe that a dinosaur can make a floating nest or clump with other dinosaurs as lesser developed species do. If you accept extrapolation as science you must also accept this. You cannot have it both ways.

As for the land masses appearing to "fit". I hardly believe your one example of South America and Africa almost fitting with significant manipulation is concrete enough. You are playing with a jigsaw puzzle.

Using your same "evidence" I find the fossil record supports dinosaurs migrating to the different continents over the ocean.

You are simply stating that your theory is the only explanation for the evidence. I, and many others, disagree.

Your definition of science is flawed.

I can have it my way, because, as I said, CD doesn't disregard sets of data.
Yes, but you are also disregarding other evidence. Cherry-picking, the reason why I'm even talking to you in the first place.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence, I'm saying it explains all of the evidence without leaving stuff out.

Also, we could extrapolate that they could have built planes or spaceships according to you. Where is the evidence for them building boats, though? You're extrapolating without all the evidence, meanwhile we won't cherry-pick.

And what data and I ignoring?

You stated, "I'm not saying it's the only explanation for the evidence". Then I would invite you to keep an open mind and objectively review the evidence.

I am not the fan of extrapolation, you are.

No

Way to address none of the post there doc!

Have you ever attempted to hang a clock in the batroom, but slip on the toilet seat, fall, hit your head and wake up with this image stuck in your mind?

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 10, 2009, 09:31:13 AM

No

Way to address none of the post there doc!

Have you ever attempted to hang a clock in the batroom, but slip on the toilet seat, fall, hit your head and wake up with this image stuck in your mind?

I simply answered your question. What is a "batroom"? I do not understand the picture you provided. Would you please stay on topic?

I simply answered your question. What is a "batroom"? I do not understand the picture you provided. Would you please stay on topic?

Sorry, doctor Spelling. I meant bathroom.  Maybe one day you will see the potential of the item in the picture.

For S's and G's we'll go around again then.

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.

1) 2) and 3) you can't support.
4) Still inferring sans fact.
5) Your image is of a coot.  The coot's nest is anchored to a foundation which touches the ground.  It would not sail an ocean.
6) Ca-Caw
7) See 4 and below.

Fish did not eat dinosaurs.

See above picture.

You and your "alts" are the only ones stating that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans. That is ridiculous.

In what way is the belief that dinosaurs used galleons and sailed the oceans ridiculous? How would you describe someone who would proclaim that dinosaurs used any type of sophisticated ship and sailed the oceans?  What would your opinion of their logic be?

TD's post just reminded me.  Why does a German speaking doctor have a Spanish speaking interpreter?