James's theory on dinosaurs

Quote from: flyingmonkey on February 24, 2010, 03:41:53 PM

They used wood for their fuel.


Burning wood works well for making hot.

As I said on the last page, fossil fuels existed far before dinosaurs were around, so there is no reason they didn't use them just as we are.

So it wasn't an asteroid, but climate change that was their downfall?    

This whole thread should be renames "James's opposition to continental drift theory".

That is where all this originates from.  James does not believe that the earth's crust moves over time, therefore the fossil record requires something else to explain its distribution.  The dinosaur fleet is secondary.

James needs to give us a serious argument as to why continental drift doesn't exist and plate-tectonics is wrong.   Then we can proceed.

This whole thread should be renames "James's opposition to continental drift theory".

That is where all this originates from.  James does not believe that the earth's crust moves over time, therefore the fossil record requires something else to explain its distribution.  The dinosaur fleet is secondary.

James needs to give us a serious argument as to why continental drift doesn't exist and plate-tectonics is wrong.   Then we can proceed.

The argument given by James, several pages ago, is "it has been proven elsewhere in this forum". But his real argument is the "ugh!" explanation: he thinks that this theory is ugly, therefore there must be a proof somewhere to debunk it. Whats more, he feels he can base his thought process on the existence of this proof, even though it does not exist.

The "ugh!" argument was used for some time against Continental Drift when the evidence was skimpy, but a lot has happened since then.

Quote from: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 08:20:52 AM

Quote from: James on February 26, 2010, 05:56:24 AM

Quote from: Raist on February 25, 2010, 10:07:47 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 25, 2010, 06:17:45 AM

Keep this discussion on topic or you will be banned.  I believe this is the third time I've had to warn about this.

You should probably move this thread to the proper forum then as it has absolutely nothing to do with fe theory.

It is a major contribution to FE canon and has substantial explanatory power with regard to issues in zetetic geology and geography. As a fervent globularist I would not expect you to understand its merit.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on February 25, 2010, 02:20:22 PM

Vegetation fossils aren't exactly hard to come by, so why haven't we found any that resemble boats or rafts.

It's hardly surprising if you consider the ratio of plants found to plants which existed. There would have to have been a staggeringly large number of boats in order for it to be statistically probable that one would be found. Current evidence is not anomalous in light of the approximate proportions of fossils found to fossilisable artifacts which were produced.

However, that's not to say the boats aren't out there. I personally think we should be looking for them much harder than we currently are.

You use the term "globularist" as a pejorative, like it is something that we should be ashamed of. Try understanding our point of view before making adolescent ad hominem attacks.

Without evidence of these boats having ever existed beyond the fact that you want it to be true in order for your Flat Earth premise to make sense, it is nothing more than a baseless hypothesis.

*points to his own username*

They can't use that word. Only we can use that word!

Waddup mah globularist brotha.

Its a stupid term. We believve in a globe, not a glob.

Quote from: James on February 16, 2010, 06:18:20 AM

They do originate from the mantle, and that is precisely how they become magnetic, I'm not sure how you've construed me as suggesting otherwise.

Doop doop

Quote from: James on February 15, 2010, 07:14:05 PM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on February 15, 2010, 06:04:53 PM

Do you believe in plate tectonics?

No.

So if rocks originate from the mantle, that would mean that they somehow get to the surface, at divergent boundaries - which is a part of plate tectonics.

Make up your mind.


You cannot keep adding material to a surface without removing it from somewhere else and keep the same size.

Eventually, the surface will move away from where new material is being added and get closer to where it is being removed.

So um, if he thinks new rock is formed at boundaries, but not that it moves, how does that work?

Its a stupid term. We believve in a globe, not a glob.

Globularist is a hell of a word to try to pronounce. a bit of a tongue twister. I lurked a lot, in fact...I think I found the word on this thread, I think James is one of the few who actually uses it.

they could have at least come up with something like globalist, which is already a scary conspiracy theorist word.

Quote from: EireEngineer on February 27, 2010, 11:37:47 AM

Its a stupid term. We believve in a globe, not a glob.

Globularist is a hell of a word to try to pronounce. a bit of a tongue twister. I lurked a lot, in fact...I think I found the word on this thread, I think James is one of the few who actually uses it.

they could have at least come up with something like globalist, which is already a scary conspiracy theorist word.

I prefer globite.

On a completely unrelated note, you know how continental drift has been "disproved" on these forums, meaning dinosaurs needed to build boats? Well how did the rest of the animals get across, e.g. worm species which are the same in Africa as in South America?

Early worms were not restricted to land.

Early worms were not restricted to land.

So after they got onto seperate continents, they evolved in exactly the same way?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 03:48:35 AM

Early worms were not restricted to land.

So after they got onto seperate continents, they evolved in exactly the same way?

Well depends if you believe they evolved, then traveled or traveled, then evolved.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on March 15, 2010, 03:49:57 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 03:48:35 AM

Early worms were not restricted to land.

So after they got onto seperate continents, they evolved in exactly the same way?

Well depends if you believe they evolved, then traveled or traveled, then evolved.

I think they evolved then the continents drifted apart.

Early worms were not restricted to land.

Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 03:48:35 AM

Early worms were not restricted to land.

Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?

Yes, they were caught by archaeyopteryx.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 03:48:35 AM

Early worms were not restricted to land.

Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 15, 2010, 04:04:39 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 03:48:35 AM

Early worms were not restricted to land.

Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?

Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 04:09:50 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 15, 2010, 04:04:39 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 03:48:35 AM

Early worms were not restricted to land.

Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?

Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.

They traveled.
They had many options too.
They could have traveled of their means. (more likely for closer landmasses). The trek honestly wouldn't be that hard for the resilient worm which could travel through different terrain and matter states (water) and had primitive "muscles" (Outside of mesoderm for lacking celoem types) allowing decent locomotion

(unlikely but:) Some could have even hitched a ride on the boats

***Also, if James is correct with his theory (he has done a great job providing evidence to doubting globularists), then it is more than likely that some unfortunate dinosaurs were hosts to worms and as an effect, carried them with overseas.

For more basal species, another host could have done the job with even better means of travel
 

Quote from: Lord Xenu on March 15, 2010, 04:14:11 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 04:09:50 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 15, 2010, 04:04:39 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 03:48:35 AM

Early worms were not restricted to land.

Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?

Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.

They traveled.
They had many options too.
They could have traveled of their means. (more likely for closer landmasses). The trek honestly wouldn't be that hard for the resilient worm which could travel through different terrain and matter states (water) and had primitive "muscles" (Outside of mesoderm for lacking celoem types) allowing decent locomotion

(unlikely but:) Some could have even hitched a ride on the boats

***Also, if James is correct with his theory (he has done a great job providing evidence to doubting globularists), then it is more than likely that some unfortunate dinosaurs were hosts to worms and as an effect, carried them with overseas.

For more basal species, another host could have done the job with even better means of travel
 

I must have missed all the evidence. Could you please point it out.

Thanks.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on March 15, 2010, 04:14:11 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 04:09:50 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 15, 2010, 04:04:39 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 03:48:35 AM

Early worms were not restricted to land.

Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?

Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.

They traveled.
They had many options too.
They could have traveled of their means. (more likely for closer landmasses). The trek honestly wouldn't be that hard for the resilient worm which could travel through different terrain and matter states (water) and had primitive "muscles" (Outside of mesoderm for lacking celoem types) allowing decent locomotion

(unlikely but:) Some could have even hitched a ride on the boats

***Also, if James is correct with his theory (he has done a great job providing evidence to doubting globularists), then it is more than likely that some unfortunate dinosaurs were hosts to worms and as an effect, carried them with overseas.

For more basal species, another host could have done the job with even better means of travel
 

We're talking about the same organisms that exist in South America and Africa, so they wouldn't have been able to swim the Atlantic. Also, this is before dinosaur colonialism.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 04:31:28 AM

Quote from: Lord Xenu on March 15, 2010, 04:14:11 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 04:09:50 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 15, 2010, 04:04:39 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2010, 03:48:35 AM

Early worms were not restricted to land.

Were early worms the ones that were caught by the early bird?

Anyway, you haven't really explained how the same species of worm could exist in two continents.

They traveled.
They had many options too.
They could have traveled of their means. (more likely for closer landmasses). The trek honestly wouldn't be that hard for the resilient worm which could travel through different terrain and matter states (water) and had primitive "muscles" (Outside of mesoderm for lacking celoem types) allowing decent locomotion

(unlikely but:) Some could have even hitched a ride on the boats

***Also, if James is correct with his theory (he has done a great job providing evidence to doubting globularists), then it is more than likely that some unfortunate dinosaurs were hosts to worms and as an effect, carried them with overseas.

For more basal species, another host could have done the job with even better means of travel
 

We're talking about the same organisms that exist in South America and Africa, so they wouldn't have been able to swim the Atlantic. Also, this is before dinosaur colonialism.

Some species Could.
Also, proof?

Where is this great evidence you speak of Ichi?? 

I think, unfortunately, us REer's missed it somehow.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg707661#msg707661
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg730656#msg730656
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg708894#msg708894


"James's theory on dinosaurs", 26 pages, November 2009
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34168.0

"What about the Dinosuars", 21 pages, May 2009
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.0

"continental drifting", 16 pages, August 2008
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21863.0

"antartica", 18 pages, June 2006
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2739.0

And this is but a small appetizer of his research.

But a small appetizer, a soupcon of the sea of drivel one has to wade through when reading posts by Mad James, spectacular in their nonsense quotient.

One, that is all conjecture. He merely has said that dinosaurs in boats was feasible (it isn't). He did not disprove continental drift nor prove dinosaurs in a boat more likely than the current theory.

Besides, how does FE deal with the earthquake and the resulting tsunami?

I don't know. But shall we let this topic die? There's been 39 pages of argument about whether dinosaurs could build boats or not.

And this is but a small appetizer of his research.

There's nothing there about worms.

I don't know. But shall we let this topic die? There's been 39 pages of argument about whether dinosaurs could build boats or not.

I say no, its a really entertaining and interesting topic. I for one would hate to see it go

Quote from: Lord Xenu on March 16, 2010, 01:20:37 AM

I don't know. But shall we let this topic die? There's been 39 pages of argument about whether dinosaurs could build boats or not.

I say no, its a really entertaining and interesting topic. I for one would hate to see it go

It wears thin after the initial hilarity.

But a small appetizer, a soupcon of the sea of drivel one has to wade through when reading posts by Mad James, spectacular in their nonsense quotient.

Keep on topic.  Also, that made no sense.