James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: James on January 17, 2010, 09:42:20 AM

The zetetic method takes the plain evidence as its starting point before making hypotheses, not the other way around.

Which is why we're all confused as to how you manage to create dino-galleons out of thin air.

How else do you explain the dispersal of Dinosaurs among the several continents across the seven seas... There is no evidence of "Pangaea" that has not be disproven on this very forum.

Give me your flaws with atomic theory. Go on, I dare you.

Wave particle duality is incomprehensible. The law of identity holds stronger than some shaky post-hoc theorising.

Also, we have particle accelerators, atom bombs, nuclear fusion and fission, and yet you say that our theory is wrong? Want to tell us its those silly satanic globuralists?

Satanism is not bad. Just as good as christianity actually.

Also you proposed cold light from the moon. Seriously, even gravitrons could eat that theory for breakfast.

Let's try and stay on topic, but particle accelerators are props to support the mistaken inductions of gloublarism, they aren't some sort of beneficial outcome. As for ordinance, I'm not sure why you view that as a boon.

Satanism is terrible. It's a ridiculous doctrine, begot by childish ego-hedonism and mopey countercultural pretentiousness, and it induces its followers to commit the most grossly selfish behaviours. This is fine when most of the practitioners are 13 year olds listening to death metal in their parent's houses, it's not so fine when it comes to control the world's aerospace industry and government funding!

Quote from: James on January 17, 2010, 09:42:20 AM

The zetetic method takes the plain evidence as its starting point before making hypotheses, not the other way around.

Which is why we're all confused as to how you manage to create dino-galleons out of thin air.

Correction; I did not create these boats, the dinosaurs created them.

Quote from: Crustinator on January 17, 2010, 02:33:31 PM

Quote from: James on January 17, 2010, 09:42:20 AM

The zetetic method takes the plain evidence as its starting point before making hypotheses, not the other way around.

Which is why we're all confused as to how you manage to create dino-galleons out of thin air.

How else do you explain the dispersal of Dinosaurs among the several continents across the seven seas... There is no evidence of "Pangaea" that has not be disproven on this very forum.

Thank you Johannes. It's reassuring to know that these crazy beliefs about floating continents and retarded dinosaurs aren't held by my esteemed colleagues, either.

If Dinosaurs really did make these ships, why don't you prove it.

I don't mean ask silly questions like "How do you suppose they got there then, if they didn't have boats"

That proves nothing. Show me a single shred of evidence that Dinosaurs built and sailed on boats.

There is loads of evidence for pangaea, the way the continents fit, simulations, fossils (you haven't shown anything about boats so it doesn't count, when you do then we can talk), etc.

Debunk that all for me.

There is loads of evidence for pangaea, the way the continents fit,

If you actually look at a map of the world, you'll find it's possible to make many of the continents fit together in many ways. If you think playing jigsaw with the Earth is evidence, then I really think you should absent yourself from this discussion.

simulations,

How is a simulation evidence of anything? It's totally fabricated. They can be used to demonstrate concepts, but not to prove them.

fossils (you haven't shown anything about boats so it doesn't count, when you do then we can talk), etc.

First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.

Debunk that all for me.

Using the word 'debunk' is to give your post undue credit.

What fossil records? As of now, your theory is purely conjecture. The continents are moving, and if we simulate the way they were moving and attempt to "rewind" time, we see there is one big continent. There are no boats.


Disprove the movement of the continents.

Go on, I dare you.

First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.

I'm sorry, but what in the fossil record suggests that any dinosaur had the intelligence and manual dexterity required to build seaworthy boats?  For all the "evidence" you've presented, you could just as easily say that aliens transported and raised the flora and fauna in question and the argument would be just as plausible.

There is no evidence of "Pangaea" that has not be disproven on this very forum.

I'm afraid that's horribly incorrect.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 06:00:20 AM

First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.

I'm sorry, but what in the fossil record suggests that any dinosaur had the intelligence and manual dexterity required to build seaworthy boats?  For all the "evidence" you've presented, you could just as easily say that aliens transported and raised the flora and fauna in question and the argument would be just as plausible.

Not true. Just for starters, there is no fossil record of alien life-forms on Earth.

Not true. Just for starters, there is no fossil record of dinosaur boats on Earth.

There is also no fossil record of the boats used by humans to colonize Australia or Hawaii. Yet no-one disputes that they did.

Well seeing as it takes time for fossils to form...

Also, there is basically only way for humans to get to australia and hawaii and that is through some sort of water based travel.

There is more than one way for dinosaur fossils to be spread out like they are. Since there are no evidence of these boats nor of dinosaurs smart enough or even able to build a boat.

Well seeing as it takes time for fossils to form...

Also, there is basically only way for humans to get to australia and hawaii and that is through some sort of water based travel.

There is more than one way for dinosaur fossils to be spread out like they are. Since there are no evidence of these boats nor of dinosaurs smart enough or even able to build a boat.

Why is there only one way for humans, but more than one way for dinosaurs?


Oh that's right, because you assume Pangea to be a valid model, and then claim to have evidence based on that unproven assumption.

There is also no fossil record of the boats used by humans to colonize Australia or Hawaii. Yet no-one disputes that they did.

*facepalm*

This lame argument has already been covered Wilmore.

We know humans build boats. (We know quite a bit about Polynesian navigation actually)

We don't know dinosaurs built boats. There's no legitimate reason to assume they did.

Humans needed to build boats.

Dinosaurs didn't. The landmasses were all connected.

Why do you keep on posting the same old stuff over and over again?

Because Humans were not around when the continents were connected. Dinosaurs could have just walked to the other lands when the continents were together.

Please troll moar.

Humans needed to build boats.

Dinosaurs didn't. The landmasses were all connected.

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Because Humans were not around when the continents were connected. Dinosaurs could have just walked to the other lands when the continents were together.

Please troll moar.

Once again, I highlight the assumption that pangea theory is correct.

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

But that's not something I've done. The proof for Pangea is vast.

*sigh* This is all old Wilmore. Old and dead.

However, we have independantly proved the Pangaea theory.

"Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa.

The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents which would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[7]

Apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a super-continent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Because we know that the poles do not move more than a few degrees, magnetic anomalies in rocks can only be explained by the drifting of continents.[citation needed]

The continuity of mountain chains also provide evidence for Pangea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain which extends from the northeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[8]"

From wikipedia.

Once again, I highlight the assumption that pangea theory is correct.

An assumtion based on evidence, unlike the Boat O' Dinosaurs which is based on nothing at all. The B.O.D theory is a conclusion needed to support another guessed idea with no proof.

None of those prove Pangea theory. Please read more.

I am sorry Wilmore, please show me how. Just saying no doesn't change reality.

None of those prove Pangea theory. Please read more.

There's plenty of proof of Pangea. Much of it has been posted on this site. Please read more.

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof [READ: EVIDENCE] that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

Quote from: markjo on January 18, 2010, 09:15:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 06:00:20 AM

First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.

I'm sorry, but what in the fossil record suggests that any dinosaur had the intelligence and manual dexterity required to build seaworthy boats?  For all the "evidence" you've presented, you could just as easily say that aliens transported and raised the flora and fauna in question and the argument would be just as plausible.

Not true. Just for starters, there is no fossil record of alien life-forms on Earth.

That's because aliens would be smart enough not to get fossilized.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:14:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 18, 2010, 09:15:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 06:00:20 AM

First of all, if you'd read this topic, you'd know the odds of finding any such boats are miniscule. Secondly, the fossil record supports our theory.

I'm sorry, but what in the fossil record suggests that any dinosaur had the intelligence and manual dexterity required to build seaworthy boats?  For all the "evidence" you've presented, you could just as easily say that aliens transported and raised the flora and fauna in question and the argument would be just as plausible.

Not true. Just for starters, there is no fossil record of alien life-forms on Earth.

That's because aliens would be smart enough not to get not to get fossilized.

So they were smart enough to get fossilized? 

That's it Tom, focus on the grammatical errors, that's the important thing here.

Willy, you've pointed out that the continents could fit together rather easily, therefore it is easy to understand how they could have all been connected once upon a time. Then go on to state that the whole theory is impossible? Whilst maintaining that Dino-yachts existed?

Get a grip, you're a walking contradiction, and it's not contributing to the discussion.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:48:55 PM

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Quote from: Canadark on January 18, 2010, 02:13:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:48:55 PM

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Nit-picking over semantics has no place in this serious forum.

Quote from: Canadark on January 18, 2010, 02:13:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:48:55 PM

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Yes, but "scholarly" implies a greater level of critical analysis (and therefore a higher likelihood of truth) than just claiming "it is because I say it is", does it not?

Quote from: James on January 19, 2010, 12:09:25 PM

Quote from: Canadark on January 18, 2010, 02:13:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 01:48:55 PM

You cannot prove pangea theory by assuming it is correct in the first place. This is what is known as circular reasoning.

Well, we do have proof that pangea existed. The Wikipedia article references some scholarly essays and reports. Whereas the only proof supporting dino-in-a-boat theory is that dinosaurs exist on different continents.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

It is a grotesque folly to equate "scholarly" and "true", which is what you have clearly done here. Every banal undergraduate dissertation ever is "scholarly".

Nit-picking over semantics has no place in this serious forum.

It's not 'nit-picking'. Canadark is treating 'scholarly' sources as if they have more merit than anything James has written. The point is, there is no greater standard than truth. Plenty of 'scholarly' research is totally incorrect, in any field.