James's theory on dinosaurs

I looked up the dictionary definition of "untrue". The entry read, "Everything believed by Tom Bishop".

Stay on topic; no personal attacks;

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 18, 2010, 03:25:20 PM

Quote from: trig on February 18, 2010, 12:59:11 PM

Why believe in seaworthy dinosaurs and not in the god Thor, if there is no evidence for either?

Fossil evidence suggests either sea-migrating dinosaurs or moving continents.

Sea-migration isn't really that far fetched. There is a chain of islands across the Bearing Straight between Russia and Alaska spread about 20 miles apart, visible to each other, which are easily swimable.

Tom raises a valid point to your observation.

Disregarding the argument concerning opposable thumbs, which by the way one of mine is not yet I am still able to function under my own brain power, James' argument can still be sound even if applied to modern day thinking and so called scientific evidence.

There is undisputed agreement amongst the modern scientific community that there is proven migration of species over short term distances across bodies of water by means of swimming or piggybacking on driftwood.

If we take Tom's observations and Jame's conjecture can we not build a simple model of creatures migrating across open bodies of water by accident and then, as all creatures do, of the learning process taking effect and accelerating.

Why are you limiting yourself to the fossil record?

Modern theory about continental drift is based on a lot more than the fossil record. Even assuming that the fossil record is just as easily explainable with the idea of migration of 10 ton dinosaurs through the oceans (which it is not), there is a lot more evidence to take into account.

The case for James' "theory" still is just a case of lack of evidence trying to pass as evidence of lack, or plain and simple evidence. And the competing theory is backed by evidence on every step.

Lmao @ Tom...

Seeing that building ships to cross the oceans is impossible, they are swimming? What's after this, flying carpets?

I don't see why you should dismiss the thought as being nonsensical.

There are aquatic reptiles in existence to this day which are capable of traveling great distances.

And before you retort with the observation that they are not the size of dinosaurs consider the largest land based predator around today, that is the polar bear, which when the need arises can still cross vast distances of open water. 

Lmao @ Tom...

Seeing that building ships to cross the oceans is impossible, they are swimming? What's after this, flying carpets?

Uh, many animals have migrated to islands by swimming. It's not outrageous at all. Did you ever wonder how animals that can't fly make it to volcanic islands?

evidence please.

Uh, many animals have migrated to islands by swimming. It's not outrageous at all. Did you ever wonder how animals that can't fly make it to volcanic islands?

By building boats, obviously.

If dinosaurs were so intelligent, why didn't they evolve hands with opposable thumbs so that they could build boats?

As your post proves, there is no correlation between opposable thumbs and intelligence.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 18, 2010, 02:47:06 AM

If dinosaurs were so intelligent, why didn't they evolve hands with opposable thumbs so that they could build boats?

As your post proves, there is no correlation between opposable thumbs and intelligence.

Perhaps not. But how would they use tools?

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 21, 2010, 09:29:02 AM

Perhaps not. But how would they use tools?

They would be perfectly capable of banging in nails with their heads. Woodpeckers are known to be able to exert tremendous force with their beak and most experts agree that this is how dinosaurs hammered nails into their boats.

So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?

Tool use does not indicate ability to construct complex machines.

Quote from: LiceFarm on February 21, 2010, 09:40:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Xenu on February 21, 2010, 09:29:02 AM

Perhaps not. But how would they use tools?

They would be perfectly capable of banging in nails with their heads. Woodpeckers are known to be able to exert tremendous force with their beak and most experts agree that this is how dinosaurs hammered nails into their boats.

So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?

Tool use does not indicate ability to construct complex machines.

To complement your post, no animal just wakes up one morning and thinks, "oh, how tired I am of killing Diplodocus with my bare claws, lets go to the small green spot I see on the other side of this ocean, and lets make some nails to stick those logs together".

A whole society with several individuals fulfilling several roles and making much more than just boats is required to finally make an inter-oceanic voyage possible. And each time this is mentioned, this discussion changes again from discussing boats to speculating about inter-oceanic nests and straw boats.

We would find nails in amongst Dinosaur fossils, and vegetation fossils of what would look like rafts.

Both of which we haven't, even though there are thousands of dinosaur fossils.

Dinosaurs that have to work together to get anything done.

I'm sure they would rather eat one another - except the Stegosaurus and Pachycephalosaurus.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on February 21, 2010, 09:49:55 AM

So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?

No they would probably use a flattened bill or sharp claws to do the mining. What I'm saying is different dinosaurs were adapted to do different tasks. There has been much academic research into dino tool use and they all agree. You may be familiar with some of it if you ever watched The Flintstones.

Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?

Quote from: trig on February 21, 2010, 03:15:53 PM

A whole society with several individuals fulfilling several roles and making much more than just boats is required to finally make an inter-oceanic voyage possible. And each time this is mentioned, this discussion changes again from discussing boats to speculating about inter-oceanic nests and straw boats.

Exactly. Fossil evidence shows that there were a wide variety of dinosaurs, each adapted to a different task. For example it is undisputed fact that the pachycephalosaurus used it's large head to hammer in nails and rivets.

While the stegasaurus would use it's spine tail to drill holes in the wood:

And bird like pterosaurs would use their beaks to cut the wood:

(The helicoprion having already taken care of lumber delivery up river by using it's specialised heavy duty wood cutting tool.

Those dinosaurs not having specialised tools, such as the Brachiosaurs, would be largely concerned with magagement or secretarial activities.

Ergo dinosaurs build boats.

I am having trouble guessing whether you are serious or just trying to be sarcastic. Are you saying that all these animals were found in the same location, at the same time? And that there is undisputed evidence of any of them using any tool at all?

Quote from: LiceFarm on February 21, 2010, 09:59:19 AM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on February 21, 2010, 09:49:55 AM

So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?

No they would probably use a flattened bill or sharp claws to do the mining. What I'm saying is different dinosaurs were adapted to do different tasks. There has been much academic research into dino tool use and they all agree. You may be familiar with some of it if you ever watched The Flintstones.

Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?

Well, James for one.

A quick note, remember that member moderating is closely tied with off topic posting.  Don't memberate and stay on topic with debate based content.  This thread has already gone to hell once, lets not let it fall again.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 21, 2010, 06:18:02 PM

Quote from: LiceFarm on February 21, 2010, 09:59:19 AM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on February 21, 2010, 09:49:55 AM

So you're suggesting that they were capable of mining, extracting ore, melting it, shaping it into nails, quenching and of constructing boats, but they would have to use their heads to drive the nails?

No they would probably use a flattened bill or sharp claws to do the mining. What I'm saying is different dinosaurs were adapted to do different tasks. There has been much academic research into dino tool use and they all agree. You may be familiar with some of it if you ever watched The Flintstones.

Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?

Well, James for one.

He has a degree in paleontology from an accredited institute or just likes to call himself an expert?

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2010, 10:13:19 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 21, 2010, 06:18:02 PM

Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?

Well, James for one.

He has a degree in paleontology from an accredited institute or just likes to call himself an expert?

According to top diploma mill dean Tom Bishop, there is no difference between an accredited institute and buying a certificate on line.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 22, 2010, 07:08:06 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2010, 10:13:19 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 21, 2010, 06:18:02 PM

Could you point out the experts in paleontology that have suggested that dinosaurs did this?

Well, James for one.

He has a degree in paleontology from an accredited institute or just likes to call himself an expert?

According to top diploma mill dean Tom Bishop, there is no difference between an accredited institute and buying a certificate on line.

And James has not even gone that far. Most university educations aren't that great.

I'm enthused by the large number of recent posts since my last visit, I am glady this theory is finally being taken seriously by so many of our astute members.

However, I must address this issue of dinosaurs swimming from continent to continent, which has been brought to light by my colleague Mr Bishop.

Now, it's very clear that dinosaurs were excellent swimmers. See 2:40 in this clip from the Polish documentary Wędrowki z Dinozaurami:



Ridiculous as it looks in the video, this young Teropody Dinozaur is an adept island-hopper. I'm quite happy to accept that the dinosaurs were able to swim (in fact, I think it quite likely by virtue of their able seamanship).

What I'm concerned about, Tom, is how the dinosaurs were able to swim the Atlantic and the Pacific. It seems an impossible feat, even for the Michael Phelps of Dromaeosaurids. Such huge expanses of water are really only traversable with the use of maritime craft, and the ability to construct such sturdy craft as could cross the largest of the Earth's oceans seems to strongly suggest a mercantile, post-agrarian society.

I'll give you one reason and two examples of why Tom's reasoning is sound.

The reason is tectonic shift and the examples are the Hawaiian chain of islands and the North Atlantic Rift.

Plate tectonics is a fact, you can see it happening in real time. I can see no reason why plate tectonics can operate on a spherical theory but not on a planar model. Both deal with a finite area and both are well able to accommodate shifting land masses.

That given it stands that eons ago there was no Atlantic or Pacific, there were only expanding bodies of open water which intelligent creatures who worked within a co-operative society could have seen as nothing more than a problem to be overcome in the search for prey.

In addition consider this: the first human aquatic explorers didn't just set off on trans oceanic excursions, they were confined to shoreline exploration or at best traveling to goals within their sphere of observation.   

I'm enthused by the large number of recent posts since my last visit, I am glady this theory is finally being taken seriously by so many of our astute members.

A lot of posts does not equal your theory being taken seriously. We all think its a joke, it is entertsaining seeing funny dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are good comedy animals.

Plate tectonics is a fact, you can see it happening in real time. I can see no reason why plate tectonics can operate on a spherical theory but not on a planar model. Both deal with a finite area and both are well able to accommodate shifting land masses. 

On a round globe, the tectonic plates will always balance out distances between continents - as it gets further from one, it will get closer to another.

On a planar model, keeping the same balance, would require the southern boundaries to work twice as much, seeing as the distances on the southern end of the map are completely retarded.

You guys really need to find a map that works.

Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.

Some might say the same of James' posts.

Some might say the same of James' posts.

Arguably its his theory so he can say what ever he wants.

Quote from: markjo on February 23, 2010, 12:11:49 PM

Some might say the same of James' posts.

Arguably its his theory so he can say what ever he wants.

So if I proposed a theory that 99% of other forum members felt was ludicrous, I could say whatever the hell I liked about it without it being subject to moderation? Even if I deliberately started parodying?

Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.

Dinosaurs building boats is reasonable, hot air balloons is unreasonable? I'd like to see some justification.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 23, 2010, 05:16:42 AM

Whilst your attempts at mockery do an excellent job of obeying the letter of the law, Licefarm, I am going to officially ask you to stop posting these obvious parody-posts. They undermine the tone and purpose of this board.

Dinosaurs building boats is reasonable, hot air balloons is unreasonable? I'd like to see some justification.

What would they use for fuel? Since they are our fossil fuels, what would they have used.

It's obviously unreasonable.

They obviously should have been able to extract hydrogen as a fuel or use vegetable based oils.