James's theory on dinosaurs

That darn Roman underclass, laughing at people in the future.

Quote from: James on January 25, 2010, 04:45:04 PM

Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?

Darwin wasn't mocked by anyone with any understanding of his theory, only by the thick plebs.

So he was just like me, then.

That darn Roman underclass, laughing at people in the future.

Thats why they had such issues with the Goths.  If we can barely stand them now, in this day and age, consider them.


This theory is unduly mocked though.  C'est la vie.  I'm not a supporter of the theory, but its not that far fetched.

Quote from: Raist on January 27, 2010, 02:51:56 PM

That darn Roman underclass, laughing at people in the future.

Thats why they had such issues with the Goths.  If we can barely stand them now, in this day and age, consider them.


This theory is unduly mocked though.  C'est la vie.  I'm not a supporter of the theory, but its not that far fetched.

It's not how far fetched it is, it is entirely possible that a race of intelligent dinosaurs could accomplish a lot. It is the fact that no evidence points towards the existence of super intelligent dinosaurs. Their ability to use tools was not based on James finding evidence of tool use but simply by him claiming they did and showing they COULD. A theory being possible makes it no more correct than one that is impossible.

Other than this it is a rather interesting and plausible theory.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 27, 2010, 05:49:44 AM

Quote from: James on January 25, 2010, 04:45:04 PM

Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?

Darwin wasn't mocked by anyone with any understanding of his theory, only by the thick plebs.

So he was just like me, then.

I'm sorry, Man Who Thinks The Moon Is A Flat Disc, but I think you'll find the highest minds of the modern age would be mocking you if you ever came under their scrutiny. Plus the Navy, who understand why they give sailors indoor berths. Oh yeah, botanists too. They'd mock you. Even the ones with doctorates. Manufacturers of thermal imaging equipment would be close behind. Then the palaeontologists, searching fruitlessly for your Boat O' Dinosaurs.
See James, your theory is actually very easy to understand. The problem it's it's a pile of garbage and demonstrably contradictory to observed evidence, which could not be said for Darwin's ideas.

I'm confused where the evidence is that dinosaurs where super-intelligent.
I thought it was generally accepted that many dinosaurs were very unintelligent and even the more intelligent dinosaurs still had relatively small brains.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 27, 2010, 05:49:44 AM

Quote from: James on January 25, 2010, 04:45:04 PM

Socrates and Darwin were mocked for their theories too, but now who's laughing?

Darwin wasn't mocked by anyone with any understanding of his theory, only by the thick plebs.

So he was just like me, then.

No.

Look - if dinosaurs didn't travel on flotation devices, and Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums) ... then how would dinosaurs have dispersed to all the "continents" ? I admit dinosaurs flying and or swimming are possibilities, but highly improbable. It would be much more energy efficient for a dinosaur to construct a raft, then hibernate while on the raft before arriving in a new land.

If the proof against pangea is "the earth is flat" it doesn't count.

Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums)

No, not proven. If you think the paltry ideas on this forum are enough to prove that Pangaea didn't exist, then you must certainly accept the link in my sig is enough to prove the earth is not flat. If you accept one but not the other, then you are displaying hypocrisy and bias.
In a nutshell Johannes, if you think Pangaea is disproven then you are admitting your belief in a round earth

Look - if dinosaurs didn't travel on flotation devices, and Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums) ... then how would dinosaurs have dispersed to all the "continents" ? I admit dinosaurs flying and or swimming are possibilities, but highly improbable. It would be much more energy efficient for a dinosaur to construct a raft, then hibernate while on the raft before arriving in a new land.

Just did a search, found no real prof against it. Link to some proof please?

Look - if dinosaurs didn't travel on flotation devices, and Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums) ... then how would dinosaurs have dispersed to all the "continents" ? I admit dinosaurs flying and or swimming are possibilities, but highly improbable. It would be much more energy efficient for a dinosaur to construct a raft, then hibernate while on the raft before arriving in a new land.

I'm sorry, but when you set up an argument based on assumptions of others you are no better than any RE'er and certainly not following the zetetic method.

The level for "proof" required here is pretty low.

It would be more accurate to say that there is a double standard required for "proof" here.  The standard of proof they accept for anything supporting FET is abysmally low, and the standard of proof they insist on for anything supporting RET is impossible to meet.

We are not willing to make concessions for any particular theories here, our own scientific claims are afforded the same rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to the scientific claims of others.

We are not willing to make concessions for any particular theories here, our own scientific claims are afforded the same rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to the scientific claims of others.

Are you including Tom Bishop in your wide ranging statement?

The truth is, there is no standard at all in these fora, so anyone who declares himself an FE'r can say pretty much anything and the other FE'rs will not even attempt to do a peer review.

In fact, there are also some "RE'rs" here that would not pass peer review in eighth grade.

There is one thing called the Scientific Method that is taught in Elementary school and that all of you Flat Earth "theorists" choose to ignore. The phrase "rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to scientific claims" assumes you are, at least, paying attention to the scientific method, and that means models, predictions, all those things you never do.

While real scientists have made predictions in the areas of Geology and Evolutionary Biology, among others, that have then been demonstrated to be sound and give Pangea credibility, you can, at most, play with lack of evidence and try to pass it as evidence of lack.

Are you including Tom Bishop in your wide ranging statement?

The truth is, there is no standard at all in these fora, so anyone who declares himself an FE'r can say pretty much anything and the other FE'rs will not even attempt to do a peer review.

The lack of standards probably derives from the overwhelming number of spherical fundamentalists on the website. I've noticed that the Round Earth apologists tend to compose their arguments more or less on-the-fly, cobbling together seemingly irrelevant data from the internet with their own wildly implausible assertions.

If you look carefully, the theories of Flat Earthers are usually very carefully researched over many years, drawing from a well-scrutinized corpus of source material, experimental data and stringent deduction.

There is one thing called the Scientific Method that is taught in Elementary school and that all of you Flat Earth "theorists" choose to ignore. The phrase "rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to scientific claims" assumes you are, at least, paying attention to the scientific method, and that means models, predictions, all those things you never do.

You should read Chapter I of Earth Not a Globe, entitled "Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared", which sets out the sophisticated methodological basis for essentially all further Flat Earth science. The scientific method of the globularist is fraught with oversights and error, that of the zeteticist is epistemologically conservative and fundamentally empirical.

We are not willing to make concessions for any particular theories here, our own scientific claims are afforded the same rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to the scientific claims of others.

Damage caused by moonlight to living creatures - NOT tested by James, as is the zetetic way.
Damage caused to eyesight by staring at the moon - NOT tested by James, as is the zetetic way.
Boat o' Dinosaurs - no evidence found by James personally, as is the zetetic way.
Earth Not A Globe - second hand account written by someone before many modern scientific ideas were even discovered or conceptualised - accepted completely by James without testing the ideas within himself, as is the zetetic way.

Look - if dinosaurs didn't travel on flotation devices, and Pangaea never existed (proven on these forums) ... then how would dinosaurs have dispersed to all the "continents" ? I admit dinosaurs flying and or swimming are possibilities, but highly improbable. It would be much more energy efficient for a dinosaur to construct a raft, then hibernate while on the raft before arriving in a new land.

Either you are trolling, or

What is more probable, continents expanding?
OR dinosaurs cutting down trees and making rafts, jumping onto the sea and travelling thousands of miles and landing on some other landmass?
1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?
2. The raft was so~ well-built it didn't tip at all during the entire journey which would have taken months?
3. The sea stayed calm during the entire journey?
4. Dinosaurs adapting to a COMPLETELY different habitat instantly?
5. To overcome these odds, MILLIONS of dinosaurs would have had to build rafts. Yet, there are none. Explanation please?

What is more probable, continents expanding?
OR dinosaurs cutting down trees and making rafts, jumping onto the sea and travelling thousands of miles and landing on some other landmass?

The second one.

1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?

Their teeth, forelimbs, tails, etc. One could argue that the average dinosaur was far better naturally equipped as a shipwright than the average human.

2. The raft was so~ well-built it didn't tip at all during the entire journey which would have taken months?
3. The sea stayed calm during the entire journey?
4. Dinosaurs adapting to a COMPLETELY different habitat instantly?
5. To overcome these odds, MILLIONS of dinosaurs would have had to build rafts. Yet, there are none. Explanation please?

Well all these coefficients of adversity are the same ones which have recently faced humanity, but that does not seem to have been much of an impediment to us colonising every landmass on Earth, except the Ice Wall.

Quote from: SeductaS on February 13, 2010, 08:55:38 PM

1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?

Their teeth, forelimbs, tails, etc. One could argue that the average dinosaur was far better naturally equipped as a shipwright than the average human.

Personally, I think dinosaurs were far better equipped in terms of tool-making ability. Normally, one needs a tool to make a tool (e.g. sharp stone to make sharp stick), but dinosaurs were a step ahead in this sense.

Quote from: trig on February 13, 2010, 12:43:08 AM

Are you including Tom Bishop in your wide ranging statement?

The truth is, there is no standard at all in these fora, so anyone who declares himself an FE'r can say pretty much anything and the other FE'rs will not even attempt to do a peer review.

The lack of standards probably derives from the overwhelming number of spherical fundamentalists on the website. I've noticed that the Round Earth apologists tend to compose their arguments more or less on-the-fly, cobbling together seemingly irrelevant data from the internet with their own wildly implausible assertions.

If you look carefully, the theories of Flat Earthers are usually very carefully researched over many years, drawing from a well-scrutinized corpus of source material, experimental data and stringent deduction.

Quote from: trig on February 13, 2010, 12:43:08 AM

There is one thing called the Scientific Method that is taught in Elementary school and that all of you Flat Earth "theorists" choose to ignore. The phrase "rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to scientific claims" assumes you are, at least, paying attention to the scientific method, and that means models, predictions, all those things you never do.

You should read Chapter I of Earth Not a Globe, entitled "Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared", which sets out the sophisticated methodological basis for essentially all further Flat Earth science. The scientific method of the globularist is fraught with oversights and error, that of the zeteticist is epistemologically conservative and fundamentally empirical.

Did anyone else notice how James just forgot to talk about models and predictions?

All of a sudden, after talking about the rigorous scientific scrutiny of FE'rs, James jumped directly into Zeteticism. Maybe the rigorous scientific scrutiny is not scientific, after all, just Zetetic.

I do not mind if you talk whatever you like based on Zeteticism. Just don't talk about scientific rigour unless you are ready to show some models, predictions and experiments or observations that confirm your predictions.

And by the way, I would like to know which FE "theories" have been years in the making, waiting to be confirmed before being published. All I see is lots of "theories" that come out of someone's hat and are then discussed for years while the full development of the "theory" is promised and promised, and promised... and never gets done.

Quote from: James on February 13, 2010, 10:24:38 PM

Quote from: SeductaS on February 13, 2010, 08:55:38 PM

1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?

Their teeth, forelimbs, tails, etc. One could argue that the average dinosaur was far better naturally equipped as a shipwright than the average human.

Personally, I think dinosaurs were far better equipped in terms of tool-making ability. Normally, one needs a tool to make a tool (e.g. sharp stone to make sharp stick), buth dinosaurs were a step ahead in this sense.

And where did you get the idea that shipbuilding is either a one step or a two step process?

Shipbuilding includes a myriad steps, of which the following are just a few:

• The creation of an agricultural or cattle-growing society that gives some of its members the spare time and resources to attempt large projects
• The acquired know-how that comes from endless generations of progressively better tools used to make better tools and infrastructure
• The language to transmit that knowhow
• A damn good reason to believe there will be something at the other side of the ocean
• Navigational know-how and tools
• Knowledge about ocean currents
• And so on, and so on...

Even assuming a dinosaur had teeth that could be used to make tools, that is a very small step in a very long ladder.

Quote from: James on February 12, 2010, 06:01:41 PM

We are not willing to make concessions for any particular theories here, our own scientific claims are afforded the same rigorous and thorough attention which we pay to the scientific claims of others.

Damage caused by moonlight to living creatures - NOT tested by James, as is the zetetic way.
Damage caused to eyesight by staring at the moon - NOT tested by James, as is the zetetic way.
Boat o' Dinosaurs - no evidence found by James personally, as is the zetetic way.
Earth Not A Globe - second hand account written by someone before many modern scientific ideas were even discovered or conceptualised - accepted completely by James without testing the ideas within himself, as is the zetetic way.

ignoreignoreignore...

Quote from: James on February 13, 2010, 10:24:38 PM

Quote from: SeductaS on February 13, 2010, 08:55:38 PM

1. What would they make the rafts with? Their teeth?

Their teeth, forelimbs, tails, etc. One could argue that the average dinosaur was far better naturally equipped as a shipwright than the average human.

Personally, I think dinosaurs were far better equipped in terms of tool-making ability. Normally, one needs a tool to make a tool (e.g. sharp stone to make sharp stick), buth dinosaurs were a step ahead in this sense.

Did they have the manual dexterity to use them with the same accuracy and acuteness as humans though? No.

I disagree.

We should be very careful in our suppositions of the digital dexterity of dinosaurs.  The dexterity of the panda is undeniable and this is achieved by a mere small bone and a pad that works like a thumb.  We might like to suppose that the anatomical arrangement of opposable thumbs  gives us a leg up in dexterity but other configurations could have been just as serviceable.   

In fact, other configurations have been just as successful - the nest building of birds, who have no hands let alone thumbs, as well as the extensive tool use of otters are two prime modern examples that you don't need thumbs to build things.

But yet no other modern equivalent of construction of complex machines by any of the species you mentioned.

Quite obviously, observations of the tool-oriented behaviour of dinosaurs are now beyond us, however the TOB of crows is now receiving the kind and depth of study that may help us bridge that expanse of time.  "Self-conceit is our natural hereditary disease" as Montaigne opined and this human ego has been responsible for previous underestimations of the talents and abilities of other species.

I disagree.

I've never heard any credited paleontologist say that dinosaurs were physically capable of doing the tasks James says they can.