Science

But how do you explain the fact that there were fossils found of the same species of ancient animal (which cannot swim) found on two separate continents? Was there an ancient landbridge between africa and europe or asia, like the landbridge that is thought to have existed between russia and alaska? Or were the continents closer together at one point, allowing free movement across a giant continent?

I thought you'd never ask.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2739&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

You can walk from Africa TO Asia now, it might be a tad uncomfortable what with the Middle East conflict right now, but it is possible.  What do you mean by 'same species of animal?'
Isn't it possible (even likely) that all modern species adapted into their present shape from several ur-organisms?

That is, an ancient reptile would be similar all over the planet, but it's descendents who have undergone centuries (possibly millenia) of adaptation would be different in one area to the next?

I see what you're saying. I was trying to remember from a video I saw a long time ago in history class, meaning my memory is foggy.

Yes you can walk from Africa to Asia now. I forgot that detail, duh *facepalm*

But according to this video I saw, fossils of the same animal species (all carbon dated to be approximately the same age, meaning it wasn't a less evolved or more evolved version of the same species that could swim) were scattered from the coasts of south america to africa. It is possible that the exact same species of animal evolved the exact same way on two separate continents, but very, very, very unlikely.

Here are some sites I just looked at:
http://library.thinkquest.org/17701/high/pangaea/pafoss.html
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=82262

Pangea never existed - The continents have always been this approximate shape. As someone already said, it's just a theory. There's nothing to back it up which can't be refuted with sound FE science.

Theories are backed up by scientific fact and are the bases of all branches of science.

Example:
The basis of chemistry is the atomic theory.
The basis of biology is the theory of evolution.
The basis of Earth science is the theory plate tectonics.

None of these theories can proven because to recreate them we would have to deal with things that we can’t see or it would just take too long.

I see what you're saying. I was trying to remember from a video I saw a long time ago in history class, meaning my memory is foggy.

Yes you can walk from Africa to Asia now. I forgot that detail, duh *facepalm*

But according to this video I saw, fossils of the same animal species (all carbon dated to be approximately the same age, meaning it wasn't a less evolved or more evolved version of the same species that could swim) were scattered from the coasts of south america to africa. It is possible that the exact same species of animal evolved the exact same way on two separate continents, but very, very, very unlikely.

It's highly improbable that the same species would evolve to such an extent in isolated environments. Read the thread I linked to - 13 pages of hardcore dinosaur, fossil and plate techtonics debate.

ZNTrip:
Eh, the Basis of Biology is taxonomy and to an extent breeding, not evolutionary theory.

Chemistry is based on Alchemy.

Earth Science is based on 'Holy fuck my house is falling apart why it do that?!?!'


The sciences are based on observational, repeatable events that occur, not one off theories.  These theories come into being as the science develops, not vice versa.

Wizardess:

There are MANY theories that answer the question of fossil distribution equally well.  It just depends on which kind of science you hold above the others.

The generally accepted theory among academics is that the Pangaea existed and life was allowed to freelly move between what is now seen as the different continents.

Biblical theory states that the continents where they are now is different to those antediluvian, and even if the continents were as far apart as they are now, the remains of the animals were carried by the flood waters and deposited when the waters receeded.

Dogplatter theory states that the Dinosaurs were intelligent enough to travel the continents.

The first option disproves the second ones because:
2.) GOD LOL
3.) We have no evidence of any civilization of Dinosaurs.

The second disproves the others because:
1.) The earth is only 6,000 years old, and the continents don't have that long to move that far.
2.) Dinosaurs were animals, and humans are the only beings on earth who have the intellectual capability of civilization, as imparted on us by God.

The third disproves the others because:
1.)  The earth is flat, and Plate Tectonics do not exist.
2.)  GOD LOL


So you see, it all depends on what other beliefs you hold that you are more inclined to believe certain evidence.

Quote from: "thewizardess"

But how do you explain the fact that there were fossils found of the same species of ancient animal (which cannot swim) found on two separate continents? Was there an ancient landbridge between africa and europe or asia, like the landbridge that is thought to have existed between russia and alaska? Or were the continents closer together at one point, allowing free movement across a giant continent?

I thought you'd never ask.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2739&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

If dinosaurs were highly advanced, what stopped them from surviving until today? They supposedly died out of natural causes. If humans weren't advanced, we would have died out from natural causes perhaps ages ago. This is why there are no Neanderthals walking amongst us today.

Was there some sort of Dinosaur warfare? Why is it that the dinosaur fossils humans have dug up have no wounds from weapons or anything like that, all seemingly dead from old age or other natural causes? It would appear to the average scientist that dinosaurs lived and breathed as modern reptiles do today, which supposedly evolved from dinosaurs. If reptiles evolved from ancient dinosaurs, wouldn't the reptiles of today also be highly advanced?

1.)  For dinosaur fossils it is very hard to tell how the animal died.  We do have remains that have markings on the bones indicative of teeth marks or the like.  However, we do know that the body had to be preserved rather quickly, say by being buried underneath huge ammounts of sand, etc.

2.)  Neanderthals may not be what you think they are.  Ther are very few Neanderthal remains, and even then, specualtion about their 'differences' from man abound.  They may have been normal humans, or it could have been an isolated community of defects.  I'm not sure how many skeletons we have (I know we don't have any complete ones) of Neanderthals we have, but if it is only a few individuals, it could have been a genetic disease that wiped itself out.

If dinosaurs were highly advanced, what stopped them from surviving until today? They supposedly died out of natural causes. If humans weren't advanced, we would have died out from natural causes perhaps ages ago. This is why there are no Neanderthals walking amongst us today.

How do you think human society would fare against any of the extinction level events which the dinosaurs allegedly died from. Nobody claims that dinosaurs just died from chronic stupidity.

A commonly accepted theory is the meteor one, where a giant meteor fills the atmosphere with unbreathable dust and debris. You think humanity would fare any better than dinosaurs?

Some people claim that mammals ate enough dinosaur eggs to drive them to extinction. If a species of efficient, tiny killer lizards started specifically eating human infants, mankind would be fucked.

Was there some sort of Dinosaur warfare? Why is it that the dinosaur fossils humans have dug up have no wounds from weapons or anything like that, all seemingly dead from old age or other natural causes?

If they were intelligent enough to conquer their prejudices and build boats together, I imagine war wasn't much of an issue. There is fossil evidence of dinosaur "racism" (a throwback from their original "eat eachother" instincts). I'm sure you've seen or heard of the fossilised remains of a protoceratops engaged in mortal combat with a velociraptor. This sort of brawling apparently did happen, but dinosaur society obviously didn't focus on large scale weaponry and war. They may have built spears and crossbows out of wood, these would by and large have decayed over time.

 It would appear to the average scientist that dinosaurs lived and breathed as modern reptiles do today, which supposedly evolved from dinosaurs. If reptiles evolved from ancient dinosaurs, wouldn't the reptiles of today also be highly advanced?

No. Humanity shares a common ancestor with all other species of primate - this common ancestor was not highly advanced. Why would the evolutionary ancestors of dinosaurs be more advanced than them?

How do you think human society would fare against any of the extinction level events which the dinosaurs allegedly died from. Nobody claims that dinosaurs just died from chronic stupidity.

A commonly accepted theory is the meteor one, where a giant meteor fills the atmosphere with unbreathable dust and debris. You think humanity would fare any better than dinosaurs?

Interesting theory. I myself do not know 100% how the dinosaurs died out, I have just been taught all my life that there was either a large meteor crash or an ice age that dinosaurs could not handle, being cold blooded. If dinosaurs were as advanced as humans in those circumstances, couldn't they have built shelters or devices with which to warm themselves?

If dinosaurs did, however, die out from other causes (as you suggested) there is a possibility that they met an untimely end. It is entirely possible that dinosaurs were intelligent enough to build boats. I am not outright denying that because nobody knows for sure, I am just questioning it because I have been taught to believe otherwise.

If they were intelligent enough to conquer their prejudices and build boats together, I imagine war wasn't much of an issue. There is fossil evidence of dinosaur "racism" (a throwback from their original "eat eachother" instincts). I'm sure you've seen or heard of the fossilised remains of a protoceratops engaged in mortal combat with a velociraptor. This sort of brawling apparently did happen, but dinosaur society obviously didn't focus on large scale weaponry and war. They may have built spears and crossbows out of wood, these would by and large have decayed over time.

Perhaps there was a warfare that didn't consist of weapons as we see them today, dinosaurs did have pretty advanced "natural" weapons, after all.
But it dinosaurs did kill each other with weapons (possibility,) wouldn't there be spear marks in bones and the like? This is only under the assumption that dinosaurs were capable of building weapons like that. Building boats is one thing, being dexterous and cooperative enough to build individual weapons without the use of opposable thumbs seems kind of improbable to me, though.

No. Humanity shares a common ancestor with all other species of primate - this common ancestor was not highly advanced. Why would the evolutionary ancestors of dinosaurs be more advanced than them?

Hmm, what I said is that
dinosaurs --> modern day reptiles
and you added that
primates --> modern day apes/humans

over time, things get more advanced, correct? The primate ancestors of humans were not as advanced as we are, obviously. So, if dinosaurs followed that same pattern, wouldn't their modern day ancestors be even MORE advanced? Or is there another theory that suggests that modern day reptiles are not, in fact, descendants of dinosaurs, but another type of animal entirely?

This theory that dinosaurs were intelligent may seem ridiculous to many round earthers but I think it is entirely possible, yet it has a few holes that unfortunately we will never be able to fully explain.

He was saying that the primate ancestors of other primates would be less advanced than those primates.


Also, building a spear is decidedly easier than building a boat.  Especially when you weight TONS.

He was saying that the primate ancestors of other primates would be less advanced than those primates.

Fair enough.

Also, building a spear is decidedly easier than building a boat.  Especially when you weight TONS.

I was picturing these boats to be more raft life, simply stringing together large chunks of wood big enough to float upon. To me that seems easier than carving a spearhead and roping it tightly to a narrow stick. I guess it depends on what kind of boat and what kind of spear. The thing is, we will never really know for sure.

Perhaps there was a warfare that didn't consist of weapons as we see them today, dinosaurs did have pretty advanced "natural" weapons, after all.
But it dinosaurs did kill each other with weapons (possibility,) wouldn't there be spear marks in bones and the like? This is only under the assumption that dinosaurs were capable of building weapons like that. Building boats is one thing, being dexterous and cooperative enough to build individual weapons without the use of opposable thumbs seems kind of improbable to me, though.

Dinosaur fossils only occur when a dinosaur dies in extremely bizzare circumstances which prevent decomposition (tar pit, glacier, lava). Dinosaur spear casualties would not have been preserved, if indeed they did happen.

As for opposable thumbs, many modern day animals make use of tools, and they don't have opposable thumbs. Birds build complex nests with their beaks and feet, otters use rocks to break open clams and shellfish.

Dinosaur fossils only occur when a dinosaur dies in extremely bizzare circumstances which prevent decomposition (tar pit, glacier, lava). Dinosaur spear casualties would not have been preserved, if indeed they did happen.

As for opposable thumbs, many modern day animals make use of tools, and they don't have opposable thumbs. Birds build complex nests with their beaks and feet, otters use rocks to break open clams and shellfish.

The only reason I say that is because there was an ancient man they call "ice man" found in some mountain range who was fossilized and had spear wounds on his bones, and they concluded he died from an attack by another human being. You're right, however, that the circumstances would be very very far and few between.

I am skeptical as to whether or not a bird or otter could build something as complex as a boat, but I guess it depends on the intelligence of the animal and the complexity of the structure.

it is entirely possible for an intelligent creature to build things without the use of thumbs, I personally knew a girl born without arms who put in contacts with her feet, typed with her feet, and even knitted with her feet. It is just extremely unusual and only the most advanced of animals could have such dexterity and patience. Not to say that dinosaurs were not as intelligent if not MORE intelligent than humans, we will never truly know, but we do know that dinosaurs had small brains when compared to their entire body, and if you look at any animal with a brain significantly smaller than their head, they are usually unintelligent. There are two ways that the theory of "small brain, little intelligence" could be false:

1) the brain is used to its full potential. The human brain is much larger than that of a dinosaur. But according to research, humans only really use 10% of what it is capable of. Imagine if a dinosaur more efficiently packed that information into a smaller brain? It's entirely possible, it just doesn't seem to occur in our modern world, however. Things do change over millions of years, though.

2) the brains weren't used to their full capacity, but the areas of the brain that control hand eye coordination and the ability to construct things were hyper advanced. Also entirely possible.

If you'll excuse me, I have to get offline now.
And excuse the poor sentence structure, (run on sentences and sentences with too many commas) I am in a rush and english class was never my strong suit

It was nice discussing things like this, I always liked the idea of challenging common knowledge and opening your eyes to other ideas.

You're very welcome, and thank you for the conversation.  I think I will elav it to Dogplatter to answer those questions, as they seem to be his specialty.

Quote from: "thewizardess"

Perhaps there was a warfare that didn't consist of weapons as we see them today, dinosaurs did have pretty advanced "natural" weapons, after all.
But it dinosaurs did kill each other with weapons (possibility,) wouldn't there be spear marks in bones and the like? This is only under the assumption that dinosaurs were capable of building weapons like that. Building boats is one thing, being dexterous and cooperative enough to build individual weapons without the use of opposable thumbs seems kind of improbable to me, though.

Dinosaur fossils only occur when a dinosaur dies in extremely bizzare circumstances which prevent decomposition (tar pit, glacier, lava). Dinosaur spear casualties would not have been preserved, if indeed they did happen.

As for opposable thumbs, many modern day animals make use of tools, and they don't have opposable thumbs. Birds build complex nests with their beaks and feet, otters use rocks to break open clams and shellfish.

Now dogplatter, weve been over this, using a rock to brak open a shell carrying a twig is far different from building large barges in which to carry decidedly large animals.

 I want you to try something today, superglue your thumb to the side of your hand, and try to build a boat, without using tools (even of the most rudimentary type), your thumb in any way.  I'll even give you the use of your brain, amazingly smart compared to the dinosaur's.

1.) Yes, they do appear to fit quite nicely, but do you have evidence that they did?

That's why it's called a theory.

Do you have any evidence that the Earth is flat... What's that? No.

Their revered Dr. Rowbotham will be by to see you shortly, Zinctrip.

(Woo! Periodic tables!)

Now dogplatter, weve been over this, using a rock to brak open a shell carrying a twig is far different from building large barges in which to carry decidedly large animals.

 I want you to try something today, superglue your thumb to the side of your hand, and try to build a boat, without using tools (even of the most rudimentary type), your thumb in any way.  I'll even give you the use of your brain, amazingly smart compared to the dinosaur's.

There are two things wrong with this experiment. First, as you know, I posit that dinosaurs DID use tools, so excluding tool use is a bit silly.

Secondly, though I'm as intelligent as any dinosaur would have been (possibly), I don't have either the motor skills or the lifelong experience of working without opposable thumbs. I won't be as nifty as a dinosaur. But yeah, sometime when I have a lot of free time and some wood, I'll perform this experiment and photograph each stage of it. I bet I can build a boat (a small one mind - hundreds of dinosaurs would have worked together to build an intercontinental boat).

There are two things wrong with this experiment. First, as you know, I posit that dinosaurs DID use tools, so excluding tool use is a bit silly.

Secondly, though I'm as intelligent as any dinosaur would have been (possibly), I don't have either the motor skills or the lifelong experience of working without opposable thumbs. I won't be as nifty as a dinosaur. But yeah, sometime when I have a lot of free time and some wood, I'll perform this experiment and photograph each stage of it. I bet I can build a boat (a small one mind - hundreds of dinosaurs would have worked together to build an intercontinental boat).

Although I'm also skeptical about dinosaurs building boats, crimsonking, Dogplatter has a valid point. In order to be able to build large structures without thumbs, you must have been born without thumbs or have adapted to building things without them. It doesn't work the same way.

It doesn't matter- dinosaurs not only didn't have opposable thumbs, they also didn't have any sort of tool-manipulating limbs at all. Nor did they have a brain structure that suggest intelligence. This hypothesis of yours is quite retarded- perhaps the most retarded thing I've heard anyone say here in earnest.

It doesn't matter- dinosaurs not only didn't have opposable thumbs, they also didn't have any sort of tool-manipulating limbs at all. Nor did they have a brain structure that suggest intelligence. This hypothesis of yours is quite retarded- perhaps the most retarded thing I've heard anyone say here in earnest.

Some of them had arm-like appendages and they all had mouths.

As cited in "antarctica" the megathread, even dinosaur experts admit they have no real way of determining the intelligence of dinosaurs.

It doesn't matter- dinosaurs not only didn't have opposable thumbs, they also didn't have any sort of tool-manipulating limbs at all. Nor did they have a brain structure that suggest intelligence. This hypothesis of yours is quite retarded- perhaps the most retarded thing I've heard anyone say here in earnest.

how can you possibly determine the intelligence of a creature from fossilized remains of a brain? Brain size does not necessarily matter if the information was more efficiently stored into a smaller unit.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

It doesn't matter- dinosaurs not only didn't have opposable thumbs, they also didn't have any sort of tool-manipulating limbs at all. Nor did they have a brain structure that suggest intelligence. This hypothesis of yours is quite retarded- perhaps the most retarded thing I've heard anyone say here in earnest.

how can you possibly determine the intelligence of a creature from fossilized remains of a brain? Brain size does not necessarily matter if the information was more efficiently stored into a smaller unit.

Mostly because that is not how brains work.
You have certain lobes that perform certain tasks. These lobes are relative to the organs they support as well as their location in the brain. So if an animal is adapt at smelling, for instance, there will me a marked decrease in the usage of higher brain functions simply because the lobes that processes scent will take up much more volume in the skull. So organ size and skull structure can tell us a lot about the intelligence of a dead animal

Mostly because that is not how brains work.
You have certain lobes that perform certain tasks. These lobes are relative to the organs they support as well as their location in the brain. So if an animal is adapt at smelling, for instance, there will me a marked decrease in the usage of higher brain functions simply because the lobes that processes scent will take up much more volume in the skull. So organ size and skull structure can tell us a lot about the intelligence of a dead animal

For the record, I think dinosaurs building boats is highly improbable.

But is it impossible to think that perhaps brain structures have changed since the time of the dinosaurs?

(I don't think it has changed, but I am curious as to whether or not this is even a possibility. It would certainly give Dogplatter something to think about! )

Quote from: "lunarlense"

Mostly because that is not how brains work.
You have certain lobes that perform certain tasks. These lobes are relative to the organs they support as well as their location in the brain. So if an animal is adapt at smelling, for instance, there will me a marked decrease in the usage of higher brain functions simply because the lobes that processes scent will take up much more volume in the skull. So organ size and skull structure can tell us a lot about the intelligence of a dead animal

For the record, I think dinosaurs building boats is highly improbable.

But is it impossible to think that perhaps brain structures have changed since the time of the dinosaurs?

(I don't think it has changed, but I am curious as to whether or not this is even a possibility. It would certainly give Dogplatter something to think about! )

What’s there is there. The basic components of brain are about the same for every living thing. Though, if you wanted to be pedantic, there is no way to know because we don’t have any dinosaurs around these days.

Though, if you wanted to be pedantic, there is no way to know because we don’t have any dinosaurs around these days.

...which is the root of the "dinosaurs could have built boats" argument.

I gotta another argument against flat earth: as i see it, all objects attract each other, the larger they are, the more they attract, which is the reason for gravity. This is newtons theory Since the earth is very large, it attracts objects. Now, this means, that all the mass would form together so, that everything is as close to each other as possible. So if the earth was flat, wouldnt the different sides pull at each other so, that it squezzes it self together in the middle and forms so, that everything is as close as possible to the center?

I gotta another argument against flat earth: as i see it, all objects attract each other, the larger they are, the more they attract, which is the reason for gravity. This is newtons theory Since the earth is very large, it attracts objects. Now, this means, that all the mass would form together so, that everything is as close to each other as possible. So if the earth was flat, wouldnt the different sides pull at each other so, that it squezzes it self together in the middle and forms so, that everything is as close as possible to the center?

Under the FE model, the Earth might well not be massive enough to cause this. Has anyone bothered to calculate what the Earth's mass would be under the FE model.

Note: I am not an FEer, I just happen to realize this one is not conclusive evidence against a FE. However, if the Earth would still be massive enough to cause this, it WOULD stand as evidence against a FE.

I dont believe it has to be huge, just nigger than everything else. Big enough to attract it.

Well, it seems the largest asteroids do form spheroids, and even the largest one, 1 Ceres, is only 950km across, so far smaller than the Earth. So the answer is yes, even a flat Earth would certainly form a sphere. FEers, explain that one.