Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?

  • 61 Replies
  • 16715 Views
?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2012, 05:11:01 PM »
..."they were all hit by meteors" theory.

The meteor theory is actual a lot more plausible. More like an asteroid the size of an Rhode Island or so (which is rather average for observed asteroids) came a smacked into the planet.

Correct. It knocked of a large piece which is why the Earth started to accelerate more rapidly.

And where did this piece of the earth go? Can you substantiate this claim?

It's not a claim; it's a theory -- a damned good one. It doesn't stretch the imagination as much as the theory that the impact of a meteorite on a RE would cause all the dinosaurs to die because of a bunch of dust blown everywhere. Which sounds more lethal to a sauropod: a violent increase in the acceleration of the entire earth or dust in the atmosphere?

The reason the government wants you to believe a dust cloud killed the dinosaurs is because they are trying to establish a precedent for their nutty too-much-CO2 in the atmosphere is gonna kill us all theory -- so the can introduce even MORE carbon taxes on the workers of the land.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2012, 06:28:24 AM »
..."they were all hit by meteors" theory.

The meteor theory is actual a lot more plausible. More like an asteroid the size of an Rhode Island or so (which is rather average for observed asteroids) came a smacked into the planet.

Correct. It knocked of a large piece which is why the Earth started to accelerate more rapidly.

And where did this piece of the earth go? Can you substantiate this claim?

It's not a claim; it's a theory -- a damned good one. It doesn't stretch the imagination as much as the theory that the impact of a meteorite on a RE would cause all the dinosaurs to die because of a bunch of dust blown everywhere. Which sounds more lethal to a sauropod: a violent increase in the acceleration of the entire earth or dust in the atmosphere?

The reason the government wants you to believe a dust cloud killed the dinosaurs is because they are trying to establish a precedent for their nutty too-much-CO2 in the atmosphere is gonna kill us all theory -- so the can introduce even MORE carbon taxes on the workers of the land.

The meteor theory was around long before the global warming crap. If a dust cloud blocks out the sun for long enough, plants can longer "breath." If the plants go, the herbivores go. If the herbivores go, the carnivores go. Cha-ching! Mass extinction. There also may have been heightened radiation levels worldwide, especially closer to the impact sight, depending on the composition of the asteroid and it's speed on impact. The initial impact would have killed off of many of the animals by itself.

Now, if we take your modified version of the theory, we have to take some things into account. In most flat earth models, there should not be asteroids due to the celestial dome that covers the earth, and all of the other celestial bodies appear to be small lights about the size of a car or a bit larger. Where did this asteroid come from? Also, there should be evidence of the impact site. The asteroid would have to be unimaginably large to knock a piece of the earth off. Also, to change the acceleration of the UA so much (3.1m/s2 to 9.8m/s2) It would have to have knocked of about 32% of the Earth. There must be evidence of such a large impact. A theory must have supporting evidence. Yours appears to be a hypothesis.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2012, 06:49:56 AM »
..."they were all hit by meteors" theory.

The meteor theory is actual a lot more plausible. More like an asteroid the size of an Rhode Island or so (which is rather average for observed asteroids) came a smacked into the planet.

Correct. It knocked of a large piece which is why the Earth started to accelerate more rapidly.

And where did this piece of the earth go? Can you substantiate this claim?

It's not a claim; it's a theory -- a damned good one. It doesn't stretch the imagination as much as the theory that the impact of a meteorite on a RE would cause all the dinosaurs to die because of a bunch of dust blown everywhere. Which sounds more lethal to a sauropod: a violent increase in the acceleration of the entire earth or dust in the atmosphere?

The reason the government wants you to believe a dust cloud killed the dinosaurs is because they are trying to establish a precedent for their nutty too-much-CO2 in the atmosphere is gonna kill us all theory -- so the can introduce even MORE carbon taxes on the workers of the land.

The meteor theory was around long before the global warming crap. If a dust cloud blocks out the sun for long enough, plants can longer "breath." If the plants go, the herbivores go. If the herbivores go, the carnivores go.

Plants, herbivores and carnivores survived. Only the huge versions of them (dinosaurs) died out. This supports the Increased Acceleration Theory.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2012, 06:56:40 AM »
..."they were all hit by meteors" theory.

The meteor theory is actual a lot more plausible. More like an asteroid the size of an Rhode Island or so (which is rather average for observed asteroids) came a smacked into the planet.

Correct. It knocked of a large piece which is why the Earth started to accelerate more rapidly.

And where did this piece of the earth go? Can you substantiate this claim?

It's not a claim; it's a theory -- a damned good one. It doesn't stretch the imagination as much as the theory that the impact of a meteorite on a RE would cause all the dinosaurs to die because of a bunch of dust blown everywhere. Which sounds more lethal to a sauropod: a violent increase in the acceleration of the entire earth or dust in the atmosphere?

The reason the government wants you to believe a dust cloud killed the dinosaurs is because they are trying to establish a precedent for their nutty too-much-CO2 in the atmosphere is gonna kill us all theory -- so the can introduce even MORE carbon taxes on the workers of the land.

The meteor theory was around long before the global warming crap. If a dust cloud blocks out the sun for long enough, plants can longer "breath." If the plants go, the herbivores go. If the herbivores go, the carnivores go.

Plants, herbivores and carnivores survived. Only the huge versions of them (dinosaurs) died out. This supports the Increased Acceleration Theory.

How does this support increased acceleration? It doesn't support a sudden increase, in fact it helps to falsify it. Anything that was adapted to a certain gravitation force would die rather quickly under it's own weight, regardless of it's size, under a sudden 320% gravitational force increase. If it didn't die suddenly, it would be slowly crushed under it's own weight. Size doesn't matter here, the body is adapted to the 3.1m/s2. If it suddenly gets much stronger, it's going to die. Gradual change could be seen, but not sudden.

In a dust cloud scenario, the smaller animals/plants would be more likely to survive. There bodies are smaller and tend to be less complex, therefore they can adapt to new environments more quickly and need less to sustain life.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2012, 02:09:33 PM »
Um... also like it's impossible for a bumble bee to fly under RE conditions??
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

?

Eric Byrnes

  • 90
  • GIT SOM
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2012, 03:05:16 PM »
Um... also like it's impossible for a bumble bee to fly under RE conditions??

Um... Why is that?
People annoy me

Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2012, 01:45:09 AM »
The funniest part of all this theory crafting is the blanket assumption that the dinosaurs required a significantly lower amount of gravity / UA (depending on your pursuasion).  Considering we have organisms living in the most extreme of environments (oceanic vents, arctic ocean floors, sulfur springs, the Mariana Trench...)

Places with absurd pressures, temperatures, toxic conditions etc.

All we have are fossils.  We don't have intact tissues, vascular samples, organs, or anything close to what would be required to validate these kinds of assumptions.  While I'll be the first to agree that the pressure differential is pretty large to circulate body fluids and the distribution mechs can get strained, that doesn't stop giant squid and blue whales from existing.  In terms of skeletal support it's hard to say since we can only guess at actual weights and connective tissue arrangements not to mention that it's been commonly theorized that some of the largest dinosaurs lived primarily in water using their ridiculous necks to reach out and eat the nearby vegitation.

But trying to paint anything of this as "proof" or even "support" for a RE of FE is quite a stretch.  Not that this thread isn't amusing in and of itself.  ;)

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2012, 03:49:38 AM »
The funniest part of all this theory crafting is the blanket assumption that the dinosaurs required a significantly lower amount of gravity / UA (depending on your pursuasion).  Considering we have organisms living in the most extreme of environments (oceanic vents, arctic ocean floors, sulfur springs, the Mariana Trench...)

Places with absurd pressures, temperatures, toxic conditions etc.

There is a place on earth where there is a lot less gravity?  ??? ??? ???
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2012, 10:37:25 PM »
Seriously Beorn?

I was pretty specific on the hurdles of larger organisms and the point that we have some living right now which means transport and dispersion are clearly managable, even with giant creatures.

So your other major hurdle is weight which I also covered along with the point that we don't really know what their weight was nor how their tissues were setup to manage it nor if they lived largely in water which would completely trivialize the "weight problem" all together.

I could understand if I had been generic or brought up some unrelated tripe and pretended it applied but for petesakes don't be a punk.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2012, 03:12:07 AM »
Seriously Beorn?

I was pretty specific on the hurdles of larger organisms and the point that we have some living right now which means transport and dispersion are clearly managable, even with giant creatures.

So your other major hurdle is weight which I also covered along with the point that we don't really know what their weight was nor how their tissues were setup to manage it nor if they lived largely in water which would completely trivialize the "weight problem" all together.

I could understand if I had been generic or brought up some unrelated tripe and pretended it applied but for petesakes don't be a punk.

You say we that organisms living in extreme circumstances like heat, ph etc show that dinosaurs could live under extreme gravity. I say that these extreme environments are very different from an environment with a much lower gravity. Also, these organisms living under extreme circumstances are mostly bacteria. They are very far off from dinosaurs.
Then you come with giant squid and blue whales, which live in the water and are still smaller than the estimated size of some of the dinosaurs. And not all huge dinosaurs are long-necked plant eaters (take Spinosaurus for example).
Also, there is strong evidence from modern dinosaurs that the old dinosaurs were boat builders. Why would they mostly live in the water AND built boats?

I don't think that I'm being the punk here...
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2012, 05:30:56 AM »
The funniest part of all this theory crafting is the blanket assumption that the dinosaurs required a significantly lower amount of gravity / UA (depending on your pursuasion).  Considering we have organisms living in the most extreme of environments (oceanic vents, arctic ocean floors, sulfur springs, the Mariana Trench...)

Places with absurd pressures, temperatures, toxic conditions etc.

All we have are fossils.  We don't have intact tissues, vascular samples, organs, or anything close to what would be required to validate these kinds of assumptions.  While I'll be the first to agree that the pressure differential is pretty large to circulate body fluids and the distribution mechs can get strained, that doesn't stop giant squid and blue whales from existing.  In terms of skeletal support it's hard to say since we can only guess at actual weights and connective tissue arrangements not to mention that it's been commonly theorized that some of the largest dinosaurs lived primarily in water using their ridiculous necks to reach out and eat the nearby vegitation.

But trying to paint anything of this as "proof" or even "support" for a RE of FE is quite a stretch.  Not that this thread isn't amusing in and of itself.  ;)

If you read the link that was posted back aways, it says something about the dinosaur's natural buoyancy. It's an interesting read.

Also, there is strong evidence from modern dinosaurs that the old dinosaurs were boat builders. Why would they mostly live in the water AND built boats?

I don't think that I'm being the punk here...


Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42602
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2012, 06:12:54 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

Here's one.  The dinosaur even managed to tie the boat off to a dock.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2012, 06:14:07 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

Here's one.  The dinosaur even managed to tie the boat off to a dock.


Is that even meant for transportation? It appears to be a nest more than a boat.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2012, 06:20:55 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2012, 06:38:36 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

Again, is it for transportation or is it just a nest? The Canadian Geese in my area don't do that. I understand that birds are highly evolved dinosaurs, but listen, they're highly evolved. They certainly weren't doing more sophisticated things 65 million + years ago, creatures don't evolves backwards. The best, most useful traits survive. So it took 500 million years for dinosaurs/birds to get to the point where several species figured out very rudimentary tools and how to build a floating nest. For humans, in less than a million years, we've almost come to the point where we're developing technology to force our own evolution past what nature can do for us, and we have weapons that can turn the surface of the planet into radioactive green glass.

I don't think Ankylosaurus Nation was warring with the United States of Spinosaurus, and in turn driving Pterasauria Aeria Nation over the ice wall to other lands.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #45 on: October 15, 2012, 06:46:42 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

Again, is it for transportation or is it just a nest? The Canadian Geese in my area don't do that. I understand that birds are highly evolved dinosaurs, but listen, they're highly evolved. They certainly weren't doing more sophisticated things 65 million + years ago, creatures don't evolves backwards.

You misunderstand evolution.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #46 on: October 15, 2012, 07:01:25 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

Again, is it for transportation or is it just a nest? The Canadian Geese in my area don't do that. I understand that birds are highly evolved dinosaurs, but listen, they're highly evolved. They certainly weren't doing more sophisticated things 65 million + years ago, creatures don't evolves backwards.

You misunderstand evolution.

I'm glad that was so full of sources and supporting statements that there's no way to argue with it.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #47 on: October 15, 2012, 07:06:50 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

Again, is it for transportation or is it just a nest? The Canadian Geese in my area don't do that. I understand that birds are highly evolved dinosaurs, but listen, they're highly evolved. They certainly weren't doing more sophisticated things 65 million + years ago, creatures don't evolves backwards.

You misunderstand evolution.

I'm glad that was so full of sources and supporting statements that there's no way to argue with it.

The most evolved species is not the most sophisticated species. There is no such thing as most evolved species. There is indeed no backwards in evolution, but you can loose traits (e.g. our tail). If the modern dinosaurs were more fit with less technological prowess then evolution would make them loose it over time. I agree this is not probable though.
But remember, the ancient walking dinosaurs were most probably racist against the flying dinosaurs. It's not difficult to imagine that they kept the flying dinosaurs out of the technological loop.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #48 on: October 15, 2012, 08:14:06 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

Again, is it for transportation or is it just a nest? The Canadian Geese in my area don't do that. I understand that birds are highly evolved dinosaurs, but listen, they're highly evolved. They certainly weren't doing more sophisticated things 65 million + years ago, creatures don't evolves backwards.

You misunderstand evolution.

I'm glad that was so full of sources and supporting statements that there's no way to argue with it.

The most evolved species is not the most sophisticated species. There is no such thing as most evolved species. There is indeed no backwards in evolution, but you can loose traits (e.g. our tail). If the modern dinosaurs were more fit with less technological prowess then evolution would make them loose it over time. I agree this is not probable though.
But remember, the ancient walking dinosaurs were most probably racist against the flying dinosaurs. It's not difficult to imagine that they kept the flying dinosaurs out of the technological loop.

There's no evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs had any technology whatsoever. And what makes you say "walking dinosaurs were racist..." against anything? We don't even know if they were self aware, never mind have critical thinking capabilities. You're making broad assumptions that aren't based on much of anything at all.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #49 on: October 15, 2012, 08:22:33 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

Again, is it for transportation or is it just a nest? The Canadian Geese in my area don't do that. I understand that birds are highly evolved dinosaurs, but listen, they're highly evolved. They certainly weren't doing more sophisticated things 65 million + years ago, creatures don't evolves backwards.

You misunderstand evolution.

I'm glad that was so full of sources and supporting statements that there's no way to argue with it.

The most evolved species is not the most sophisticated species. There is no such thing as most evolved species. There is indeed no backwards in evolution, but you can loose traits (e.g. our tail). If the modern dinosaurs were more fit with less technological prowess then evolution would make them loose it over time. I agree this is not probable though.
But remember, the ancient walking dinosaurs were most probably racist against the flying dinosaurs. It's not difficult to imagine that they kept the flying dinosaurs out of the technological loop.

There's no evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs had any technology whatsoever. And what makes you say "walking dinosaurs were racist..." against anything? We don't even know if they were self aware, never mind have critical thinking capabilities. You're making broad assumptions that aren't based on much of anything at all.

I think that it's interesting that the modern day dinosaurs are all of the flying type. Considering the hypothesis that there are walking dinosaurs across the ice plane, could it be that the walking dinosaurs do not allow flying dinosaurs to join their kind? Are dinosaurs racist? There are examples of modern day dinosaurs turned racist against black people, did they get this from their walking brethren?

racist dinosaur
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #50 on: October 15, 2012, 08:52:46 AM »
Modern Dinosaurs? Do you mean birds? I've never heard of a bird building a boat. Can you provide a source for this information?

RErs screamed for evidence of dinosaurs building boats. They would have received something like this.

A dinosaur in a boat that it made.
I hope you enjoyed that as the temptation to type lurk moar was strong.

Again, is it for transportation or is it just a nest? The Canadian Geese in my area don't do that. I understand that birds are highly evolved dinosaurs, but listen, they're highly evolved. They certainly weren't doing more sophisticated things 65 million + years ago, creatures don't evolves backwards.

You misunderstand evolution.

I'm glad that was so full of sources and supporting statements that there's no way to argue with it.

The most evolved species is not the most sophisticated species. There is no such thing as most evolved species. There is indeed no backwards in evolution, but you can loose traits (e.g. our tail). If the modern dinosaurs were more fit with less technological prowess then evolution would make them loose it over time. I agree this is not probable though.
But remember, the ancient walking dinosaurs were most probably racist against the flying dinosaurs. It's not difficult to imagine that they kept the flying dinosaurs out of the technological loop.

There's no evidence whatsoever that dinosaurs had any technology whatsoever. And what makes you say "walking dinosaurs were racist..." against anything? We don't even know if they were self aware, never mind have critical thinking capabilities. You're making broad assumptions that aren't based on much of anything at all.

I think that it's interesting that the modern day dinosaurs are all of the flying type. Considering the hypothesis that there are walking dinosaurs across the ice plane, could it be that the walking dinosaurs do not allow flying dinosaurs to join their kind? Are dinosaurs racist? There are examples of modern day dinosaurs turned racist against black people, did they get this from their walking brethren?

racist dinosaur

That's a racist bird. Plus, humans teach those birds those things, and as far as I know, they are just repeating words and phrases they've learned from humans, not constructing advanced concepts such as racism on their own. Also, there were no flying dinosaurs, just flying reptiles, which bear little resemblance to modern day birds.

There is a clear trail of fossils that lead from Therapods, to creatures such as archaeopteryx, then continuing onward to birds. The bone structure and brain size/body mass ratio, among other things, are far more similar in Therapods and birds than they are the Ptersaurs and birds. Modern day birds are though to have evolved from creatures such as Velociraptor and Oviraptor. The Tyrannosaurids, Spinosauropteryx, compsognathids, and toodontids, among many others, have been shown to have feathers through fossil evidence of "skin imprints" left behind.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #51 on: October 15, 2012, 08:54:20 AM »
That's a racist bird.

Birds are dinosaurs.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #52 on: October 15, 2012, 09:00:52 AM »
That's a racist bird.

Birds are dinosaurs.

No, they're not. They're what dinosaurs evolved into. That's like saying Humans are those little rat things that ran around the Earth during the time of Tyrannosaurus Rex. I see you also didn't bother with the rest of my post. I'll summarize. Birds are what the "walking brethren" evolved into.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #53 on: October 15, 2012, 09:06:12 AM »
That's a racist bird.

Birds are dinosaurs.

That's like saying Humans are those little rat things that ran around the Earth during the time of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Euhm no that's like saying humans are mammals.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #54 on: October 15, 2012, 09:26:02 AM »
Seriously Beorn?

I was pretty specific on the hurdles of larger organisms and the point that we have some living right now which means transport and dispersion are clearly managable, even with giant creatures.

So your other major hurdle is weight which I also covered along with the point that we don't really know what their weight was nor how their tissues were setup to manage it nor if they lived largely in water which would completely trivialize the "weight problem" all together.

I could understand if I had been generic or brought up some unrelated tripe and pretended it applied but for petesakes don't be a punk.

You say we that organisms living in extreme circumstances like heat, ph etc show that dinosaurs could live under extreme gravity. I say that these extreme environments are very different from an environment with a much lower gravity. Also, these organisms living under extreme circumstances are mostly bacteria. They are very far off from dinosaurs.
Then you come with giant squid and blue whales, which live in the water and are still smaller than the estimated size of some of the dinosaurs. And not all huge dinosaurs are long-necked plant eaters (take Spinosaurus for example).
Also, there is strong evidence from modern dinosaurs that the old dinosaurs were boat builders. Why would they mostly live in the water AND built boats?

I don't think that I'm being the punk here...
Yeah...because your entire intial response being a retorical question was constructive and fair? 

And no.  I say that examples of nature adapting to extreme conditions means it can not be safely assumed that dinosaurs required a large change in gravity/UA. 

Most descriptions of spinosaurus suggest that it is related to crocodiles may have lived in and out of water.  They also site it's estimated weight between 7 and 22 tons.  The brontosauarus is estimated at over 25 tons.  The largest acknowledged dinosaur remains found in Argentina suggest a possible size of over 100 tons.  But you have to take that with a big grain of salt as they have only found some vertibrae and tibia and are making A LOT of speculation from there.  By way of comparison, the african elephant can be a bit over 10 tons.  The blue whale is up to around 200 tons.


There are (generally speaking) two hurdles for the size of an organism.

Transport and distribution internally (aka the volume vs. surface area efficiency issue, how do you circulate that much oxygen, blood, etc.)

Structural support (how do you deal with that much mass and the subsequent weight and kinetic momentum and pressure variences on tissues etc.)


You are correct that thermophiles etc. are mostly bacteria but that's really not the point.  The point is that your average person would look at x situation and say "no way is something living there!" and yet nature seems to find ways to adapt.


But in regard to specifics.  Obviously we have current living examples right now demonstrating the transport and distribution problem can be overcome as the size of a blue whale truly dwarfs most dinosaurs

In regard to the structural support issues.  I specifically note that

A) we don't really know what they actually weighed
B) we have no clue how their connective and re-inforcing tissue structures worked
C) we don't really know how many of them lived on land and how much time they spent on it
D) we DO have organisms living at absolutely crushing pressures, even the afore mentioned whales can dive to depths well beyond what would crush you and I.  They have quite a few adaptations that allow them to do so.  So we do have living examples of complex organisms that can handle very high stresses on their tissues.  It's not the exact same as the requirements of a land walking creature larger than an elephant but that's really not the point.

Thus my point that we can speculate about a lot of things but if we treat it beyond that and pretend we're talking about facts then we're kidding ourselves.  This was said primarily in response to the assumptions that dinosaurs "must have required less gravity/UA".


Then you respond with the statement of where's the place on earth will less gravity?  Which aside from being a purely abusive retorical question has jack all to do with anything I just said as my whole point was that the assumption of requiring different gravity is exactly that, an assumption.


Then when I call you out on the abusive statement... 

You're response is that birds have built nests in water.  I agree, they have and do. http://birds.ecoport.org/Ecology/EBnests-aquatic.htm
You follow that with a statement questioning the validity of making a floating nest if you live in water.  Never mind the point that all documented birds that make floating nests spend a good chunk of time swimming in the water...

Ignoring this you also make a statment than because modern birds (flyers) make floating nests, large ancient land creatures, are unlikely to have lived in water...


And you act like that isn't also a completely over the top abusive statement but is in fact a rational argument.



But to be even more specific...lets pretend that ancient flying dinosaurs also built nests on water, in fact lets pretend ALL of the ancient flyers did this and pretend we had some way to prove it.  How exactly does that even start to apply to non flyer's habits and what does that have to do with the previous discussion at all?



So yes, I feel you simply ignored much of what is currently known about modern biology and life on the planet, ignored much of what is unknown about ancient life, and threw out some abusive statements.


Having said all of this, even ancient dinosaurs drove around in yachts...that would not tell us their actual mass or if they were not structurally sound enough that they would absolutely require lower gravity/UA.



Your assessment that birds are dinosuars is messed up on so many levels I don't even know where to start let alone the point that you say modern dinos are all the flying type?  What?  So you'll count a bird as a dinosaur but hell no crocodiles?!  And a parrot mimics what it hears so now we have "evidence" of racism in ancient times?

Do you understand the magnitude of the leaps in logic you're making? 

Biologists and pretty much every text book on the planet call a bird a bird...because it is not cold blooded...among other aspects that dinosuars are assumed to have had.  This is not to say there is not a historical link (which is the whole reasoning behind evolution) but it is to say there are enough critical differences established between what we call a bird and what we assume about dinosaurs.

Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #55 on: October 15, 2012, 09:30:41 AM »
I'm sure this will all boil down to semantic hand waving but following the dictionary straight we get that:

1) Dinosaurs are reptiles: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=s2T&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=dinosaur&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=Gzh8UOHbJsGW0QHq64GQDQ&ved=0CCQQkQ4&biw=1920&bih=900
2) Birds are warm blooded: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=tN9&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1920&bih=900&tbs=dfn%3A1&q=bird&oq=bird&gs_l=serp.3..0i7j0l2j0i7j0j0i7l2j0.3953.3953.0.4132.1.1.0.0.0.0.90.90.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.XvIPnhuqKiU
3) Reptiles are cold blooded: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=eio&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=1920&bih=900&tbs=dfn%3A1&q=reptile&oq=reptile&gs_l=serp.3..0l10.59735.60382.0.60497.7.6.0.1.1.0.130.564.3j3.6.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.LeTD5j8X6_0

Reptiles and birds are really quite different animal kingdoms.

Of course there's some argument about which dinosaurs were actually cold-blooded (and therefore could really be considered reptiles). I'm not sure the term "dinosaur" is really all that carefully specified when there's a lot we don't know about them.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #56 on: October 15, 2012, 10:01:44 AM »
Yeah...because your entire intial response being a retorical question was constructive and fair? 

I apologize. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.

And no.  I say that examples of nature adapting to extreme conditions means it can not be safely assumed that dinosaurs required a large change in gravity/UA. 

It might not be safe to assume, but it is a damn good hypothesis that fits with the other evidence present that the earth is flat.

The blue whale is up to around 200 tons.

And it's also in the water 100% of the time.

There are (generally speaking) two hurdles for the size of an organism.

Transport and distribution internally (aka the volume vs. surface area efficiency issue, how do you circulate that much oxygen, blood, etc.)

Structural support (how do you deal with that much mass and the subsequent weight and kinetic momentum and pressure variences on tissues etc.)

Which would all work very differently under lower gravity hence the extinction of the ancient dinosaurs.

You are correct that thermophiles etc. are mostly bacteria but that's really not the point.  The point is that your average person would look at x situation and say "no way is something living there!" and yet nature seems to find ways to adapt.

Indeed nature did adapt. It also killed of most of the dinosaurs.

But in regard to specifics.  Obviously we have current living examples right now demonstrating the transport and distribution problem can be overcome as the size of a blue whale truly dwarfs most dinosaurs

Again, water

In regard to the structural support issues.  I specifically note that

A) we don't really know what they actually weighed
B) we have no clue how their connective and re-inforcing tissue structures worked
C) we don't really know how many of them lived on land and how much time they spent on it
D) we DO have organisms living at absolutely crushing pressures, even the afore mentioned whales can dive to depths well beyond what would crush you and I.  They have quite a few adaptations that allow them to do so.  So we do have living examples of complex organisms that can handle very high stresses on their tissues.  It's not the exact same as the requirements of a land walking creature larger than an elephant but that's really not the point.

Yes, they evolved to withstand that pressure. This took millions of years. The dinosaurs evolved to live under a lower gravity, which suddenly changed. They had no time to adapt to this.

Then you respond with the statement of where's the place on earth will less gravity?  Which aside from being a purely abusive retorical question has jack all to do with anything I just said as my whole point was that the assumption of requiring different gravity is exactly that, an assumption.

In a thread about lower gravity lower gravity has nothing to do with it. Got it.

But to be even more specific...lets pretend that ancient flying dinosaurs also built nests on water, in fact lets pretend ALL of the ancient flyers did this and pretend we had some way to prove it.  How exactly does that even start to apply to non flyer's habits and what does that have to do with the previous discussion at all?

You were saying that dinosaurs could handle the gravity because they were mostly living in the water. I asked why they would mostly live in the water and make boats.

So yes, I feel you simply ignored much of what is currently known about modern biology and life on the planet, ignored much of what is unknown about ancient life, and threw out some abusive statements.

I find this an arsenic comment and I would appreciate it if you would leave personal attacks out of this.

Biologists and pretty much every text book on the planet call a bird a bird...because it is not cold blooded...among other aspects that dinosuars are assumed to have had.  This is not to say there is not a historical link (which is the whole reasoning behind evolution) but it is to say there are enough critical differences established between what we call a bird and what we assume about dinosaurs.

Almost every text book calls humans hom sapiens. They're still mamals.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #57 on: October 15, 2012, 10:23:44 AM »
The blue whale is up to around 200 tons.

Research buoyancy. It's what helps the whales not die under their own weight. When you put a blue whale on land, guess what happens? That buoyancy no longer matters, and they slowly crush under their own weight. Now go back to the article that was previously linked about "possibly solving the dinosaur paradox" or something like that. It takes you through it, scientifically, step by step.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #58 on: October 15, 2012, 12:28:06 PM »
The blue whale is up to around 200 tons.

Research buoyancy. It's what helps the whales not die under their own weight. When you put a blue whale on land, guess what happens? That buoyancy no longer matters, and they slowly crush under their own weight. Now go back to the article that was previously linked about "possibly solving the dinosaur paradox" or something like that. It takes you through it, scientifically, step by step.

Why do I even bother separating the hurdles of being a large organism?...yes...I am fully aware of how buoyancy works, research microcarrier beads and then consider having to know both buoyancy along with 2 phase fluid dynamics on particles in solution to ensure everything plays nice together.  If you do not understand the difficulty in modeling 2 phase fluid dynamic patterns you won't fully appreciate the gravity of what I'm talking about but it should give you an idea. But yes, suffice it to say I understand buoyancy, not just the layman's version of it (x floats because its less dense) but actual buoyancy as it relates to competing forces and using surface integration techniques to calculate it.

Whales prove the ability of distribution and transport internally, they do not prove the ability of a huge amount of supported standing weight.  Though their tissues do handle very high pressure differentials which is a different kind of stress...which I specifically said...no where do I claim that any living creature currently can directly prove dinosaurs could walk under similar gravitational/UA conditions. 

And while I am aware this particular author believes dinos did not spend significant time in water, that is not a truly settled case (nor likely will it ever be).  He also fails to take into account the whole problem with all the skeletons larger than a brontosuar being extremely incomplete (in some cases just a couple of bones) or that they had particularly dense leg bones but not so much on the upper body which would drastically reduce overall skeletal weight while allowing for serious loading on the limbs themselves.  And then muscles get brought into play with zero regard to leverage (which is why a gorilla that is vastly less muscled than you or I can rip your arms off with little effort, it's that big of a deal) and are treated as if the weight is suspended on them directly.  He makes comments about the teeth which ignore's the practice of eating rock and what not to aid with digestion due to weak jaws on a small head (not unusual practice). etc. etc. etc.

Not that his thoughts are not interesting or fun.  Not that the author is even neccesarily wrong.  But it all has to be taken with a large grain of salt as does practically any theory about "what happened to the dinosuars"? 

As Pseudonym might put it, many people will rely on argumentum ad populum as their support on these kinds of arguments.  And really, I can't blame anyone for that since trying to claim hard evidence for anything that happened that long ago is a slippery slope right from the start.


I apologize. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.


There is a difference between getting your feelings hurt vs. being annoyed with someone who you feel is likely to be acting dense just to screw with you when you're already trying to be specific.

I feel it's likely you're trolling me, its that or you do not understand how far of a stretch the dots are that you are connecting.  My only option would be to continue to find new iterations of repeating what I've already said along with adding in even more clarifications and details which would result in an even larger wall of text.  Which is pointless. 

So I'll leave off with two things: my condensed thoughts on biological classification and the minor details of warm vs. cold blooded organisms vs. your confusion of mamals vs. humans...

Animalia --> Chordata --> Mamal (mamalia) --> Primate --> Hominidae --> Hominini --> H. sapiens (human)
Animalia --> Chordata --> Bird (aves) --> Anseriformes -->Anatidae --> Anas --> A. platyrhynchos (mallard)

Birds (class Aves) are feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals.

You can not put dinosaurs inside aves.  It litterally does not jive with the classification, period.

Once they evolved (assuming the link is solid, I personally believe it is) to be warm blooded and feathered, it is no longer a dinosaur.  There is no ambiguity here.


And the big problem (ignoring the geological impacts) of suggesting a massive gravity/UA shift is responsible for dinosuar extinction...

Mamals existed well before this would have happened, so did flying creatures.  Additionally not all dinosuars were massive in size durring this era.  So how is it that you can reason a big shift in gravity/UA would somehow only target dinosuars and ignore most other complex species which did not radically adapt durring that same time (and they would have had to along with leaving clear evidence of previously having significantly more delecate bones that rapidly gained in density).  Consider the massive strength difference all flyers would have had to undergo, and then consider how quickly mutations and evolution actually occurs in nature ever since it's been documented, the article specifically talks about the impact on flyers and explains it off as extremely rapid evolution.

I absolutely agree a rapid shift in the gravitational constant would be capable of wiping out dinosaurs, unfortunately I also see no reason why it wouldn't wipe out practically all land based creatures and absolutely every last flying creature much bigger than a gnat.  Quid pro quo, if it was not rapid enough to kill all flying creatures then it seems unlikely that it would have been rapid enough to kill all dinosuars as flying creatures would be hit considerably hard by an environment shift like this to put it lightly.  It is more reasonable that something occurred that reduced the overall food supply making speed and efficiency king over size, armor, and strength.  Or it may be as simple as the theory that mamals were REALLY friggin good at stealing and eating eggs prompting everything to get small enough that they could face egg snatchers head on.  Knock out a base tier in a food chain and there is a chance everything above it topples, game over.

None of that proves or disproves how the dinosuars largely became extinct in rapid succession of course, it is simply another set of assumptions lain on top of a set of assumptions.  Which is the reason for my initial point that making such huge assumptions and suggesting it lends credit to a given FE model or RE model is (to me) silly.  As no one can prove any of it, even the people who dedicate their lives to studying it.


And yes I'm cranky and irritable right now as I am sick with a sinus infection at home and one of the projects at work is already behind schedule and we now loose another day on it.  So my patience and empathy are not my usual.  Appologies in advance.  :(

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Is the dinosaur paradox final proof of the flat earth?
« Reply #59 on: October 15, 2012, 01:54:41 PM »
The blue whale is up to around 200 tons.

Research buoyancy. It's what helps the whales not die under their own weight. When you put a blue whale on land, guess what happens? That buoyancy no longer matters, and they slowly crush under their own weight. Now go back to the article that was previously linked about "possibly solving the dinosaur paradox" or something like that. It takes you through it, scientifically, step by step.

Why do I even bother separating the hurdles of being a large organism?...yes...I am fully aware of how buoyancy works, research microcarrier beads and then consider having to know both buoyancy along with 2 phase fluid dynamics on particles in solution to ensure everything plays nice together.  If you do not understand the difficulty in modeling 2 phase fluid dynamic patterns you won't fully appreciate the gravity of what I'm talking about but it should give you an idea. But yes, suffice it to say I understand buoyancy, not just the layman's version of it (x floats because its less dense) but actual buoyancy as it relates to competing forces and using surface integration techniques to calculate it.

Whales prove the ability of distribution and transport internally, they do not prove the ability of a huge amount of supported standing weight.  Though their tissues do handle very high pressure differentials which is a different kind of stress...which I specifically said...no where do I claim that any living creature currently can directly prove dinosaurs could walk under similar gravitational/UA conditions. 

And while I am aware this particular author believes dinos did not spend significant time in water, that is not a truly settled case (nor likely will it ever be).  He also fails to take into account the whole problem with all the skeletons larger than a brontosuar being extremely incomplete (in some cases just a couple of bones) or that they had particularly dense leg bones but not so much on the upper body which would drastically reduce overall skeletal weight while allowing for serious loading on the limbs themselves.  And then muscles get brought into play with zero regard to leverage (which is why a gorilla that is vastly less muscled than you or I can rip your arms off with little effort, it's that big of a deal) and are treated as if the weight is suspended on them directly.  He makes comments about the teeth which ignore's the practice of eating rock and what not to aid with digestion due to weak jaws on a small head (not unusual practice). etc. etc. etc.

Not that his thoughts are not interesting or fun.  Not that the author is even neccesarily wrong.  But it all has to be taken with a large grain of salt as does practically any theory about "what happened to the dinosuars"? 

As Pseudonym might put it, many people will rely on argumentum ad populum as their support on these kinds of arguments.  And really, I can't blame anyone for that since trying to claim hard evidence for anything that happened that long ago is a slippery slope right from the start.


I apologize. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.


There is a difference between getting your feelings hurt vs. being annoyed with someone who you feel is likely to be acting dense just to screw with you when you're already trying to be specific.

I feel it's likely you're trolling me, its that or you do not understand how far of a stretch the dots are that you are connecting.  My only option would be to continue to find new iterations of repeating what I've already said along with adding in even more clarifications and details which would result in an even larger wall of text.  Which is pointless. 

So I'll leave off with two things: my condensed thoughts on biological classification and the minor details of warm vs. cold blooded organisms vs. your confusion of mamals vs. humans...

Animalia --> Chordata --> Mamal (mamalia) --> Primate --> Hominidae --> Hominini --> H. sapiens (human)
Animalia --> Chordata --> Bird (aves) --> Anseriformes -->Anatidae --> Anas --> A. platyrhynchos (mallard)

Birds (class Aves) are feathered, winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals.

You can not put dinosaurs inside aves.  It litterally does not jive with the classification, period.

Once they evolved (assuming the link is solid, I personally believe it is) to be warm blooded and feathered, it is no longer a dinosaur.  There is no ambiguity here.


And the big problem (ignoring the geological impacts) of suggesting a massive gravity/UA shift is responsible for dinosuar extinction...

Mamals existed well before this would have happened, so did flying creatures.  Additionally not all dinosuars were massive in size durring this era.  So how is it that you can reason a big shift in gravity/UA would somehow only target dinosuars and ignore most other complex species which did not radically adapt durring that same time (and they would have had to along with leaving clear evidence of previously having significantly more delecate bones that rapidly gained in density).  Consider the massive strength difference all flyers would have had to undergo, and then consider how quickly mutations and evolution actually occurs in nature ever since it's been documented, the article specifically talks about the impact on flyers and explains it off as extremely rapid evolution.

I absolutely agree a rapid shift in the gravitational constant would be capable of wiping out dinosaurs, unfortunately I also see no reason why it wouldn't wipe out practically all land based creatures and absolutely every last flying creature much bigger than a gnat.  Quid pro quo, if it was not rapid enough to kill all flying creatures then it seems unlikely that it would have been rapid enough to kill all dinosuars as flying creatures would be hit considerably hard by an environment shift like this to put it lightly.  It is more reasonable that something occurred that reduced the overall food supply making speed and efficiency king over size, armor, and strength.  Or it may be as simple as the theory that mamals were REALLY friggin good at stealing and eating eggs prompting everything to get small enough that they could face egg snatchers head on.  Knock out a base tier in a food chain and there is a chance everything above it topples, game over.

None of that proves or disproves how the dinosuars largely became extinct in rapid succession of course, it is simply another set of assumptions lain on top of a set of assumptions.  Which is the reason for my initial point that making such huge assumptions and suggesting it lends credit to a given FE model or RE model is (to me) silly.  As no one can prove any of it, even the people who dedicate their lives to studying it.


And yes I'm cranky and irritable right now as I am sick with a sinus infection at home and one of the projects at work is already behind schedule and we now loose another day on it.  So my patience and empathy are not my usual.  Appologies in advance.  :(

I'm not going to bother reading your angry rant. But I will say, I was attempting to give you a supporting argument by referring you to that link.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.