Dinosaurs: Made In China

I am glad you agree. Fossils of dinosaurs really are all hoaxes, such as the evidence suggests. They do however make great stories still, like the tantalizing TRex. Science should accept its mistakes and move on from the long outdated globe and evolutionary, trillion year old earth.

You misunderstand lots of things. The age of the earth is around 4.5bn years while the universe is around 13.7bn years give or take.

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on December 22, 2016, 02:10:10 AM

I am glad you agree. Fossils of dinosaurs really are all hoaxes, such as the evidence suggests. They do however make great stories still, like the tantalizing TRex. Science should accept its mistakes and move on from the long outdated globe and evolutionary, trillion year old earth.

You misunderstand lots of things. The age of the earth is around 4.5bn years while the universe is around 13.7bn years give or take.

No, in fact the world was made last Tuesday.

I am glad you agree. Fossils of dinosaurs really are all hoaxes, such as the evidence suggests. They do however make great stories still, like the tantalizing TRex. Science should accept its mistakes and move on from the long outdated globe and evolutionary, trillion year old earth.

So you really are just trolling. I knew it!

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on December 22, 2016, 02:10:10 AM

I am glad you agree. Fossils of dinosaurs really are all hoaxes, such as the evidence suggests. They do however make great stories still, like the tantalizing TRex. Science should accept its mistakes and move on from the long outdated globe and evolutionary, trillion year old earth.

So you really are just trolling. I knew it!

It's hard to tell. Flat earthers can really be that dumb.

Their more idiotic than those fake 9/11 fucktards.

Their more idiotic than those fake 9/11 fucktards.

*They're* Even idiotic FEers know that much!

You want proof....go on a visit, take a break..

https://www.nps.gov/dino/index.htm

How convenient of the 1,500 dinosaurs to die directly in exhibit hall. You might as well be telling me to go to https://www.mysteryspot.com/ for evidence of the paranormal. Is that all it really takes to trick you folks? Are your imaginations so hungered that they will grasp onto any wild whim of a mad man? Flying Lizard Dragons that magically turn into birds?

Really?

We have already examined the techniques that go into such a production earlier in this thread.

Some Methods Used To Fake

• Using real materials such as bones teeth and body parts embedded in glue and resin
• Crushing Genuine fossils and mixing with glue to fabricate parts to ensure proper colouring and composition
• Casting, painting and sculpting, breaking it, then repairing for calcite veins
• Blending together modern skulls of different animals
• Assembling fossils of unrelated real species together to form a fake

It's easy to see how tourist traps like those could fool the untrained eye. They are stunning works of equal part deception and fantasy. They have made a profession around finding the traits common to all these fabrications, and unknowingly act as simple assessors of the quality of the duplicate, at best, and at worst inventors of mad ideas and schemes to keep these ludicrous beasts alive. Rooted in their history of fakery, dupery, and general misconduct and nonsense they have now multiple generations of unknowing students dreaming of their little dragons while they fumble around with cheap chinese knock offs.

Seems legit to me. Right?

Look at those flying monkey dragons:


Are you guys nuts?

You've never seen anything remotely like most the nonsense that comes out of camp dino:

Its the name of the company. Of course they put their name on it. Did you really expect them to call themselves "Fake Dinosaur Bones for Museums"?

They are running a legitimate business if they call it 'art' and if they call it fake dinosaur bones they will land themselves up in a Chinese prison.

Its clear why we haven't found dinosaur bones yet - they don't exist. Long necked dinosaurs could not even eat without passing out due to lack of blood flow to their brain!

Additionally, do we really expect us to believe these existed:

This interesting fellow would bite off the top of his mouth everytime he closed his mouth.

Let me eat some food - opps I poked my eye out and lacerated my midsection

Someone is clearly taking the piss here. Another fake Chinese dinosaur. It seems China has realized we have some suckers in America that will believe anything.

Really? Really? When this creature is not gliding he finds it impossible to climb trees to provide a place to glide from. Also note his ridiculous extra arms.



But ok, looking silly doesn't mean they don't exist, right? Because we have all seen the gentle platypus. But consider some of these FACTS.

For decades paleontogists had a hard rule - the only dinosaurs with feathers were small two legged meat eating theropods. Unfortunately, Kulindadromeus was discovered in 2014 - a plant eating feathered ornithopod. To advance their evolution theories, they did a complete flip flop, invented a new dinosaur and gave him feathers, presumably to cover up a hole they found. Ken Ham talks of this: “Evolutionists use dinosaurs to reach children more than anything to promote their worldview,” Unfortunately he has fallen prey to the great dinosaur lie.

Additionally, during the great Bone Wars, two members of the elite purposefully manufactured these dinosaur bones to start this great myth, pretending to be in fierce competition and constantly pointing out when each other faked their evidence - laughing at the public in plain sight.

However, let us stack up some more evidence against this silly idea.

An event that would kill off all dinosaurs would have destroyed ALL life on earth. This would be clear to see in evidence.
An extinction event like an Asteroid would not have killed off under-water dinosaurs

Dinosaurs were too big to be able to feed themselves
Elephants have to eat around 18 hours a day. The brontosaurus, supposedly at least 5 times larger would have to eat for an impossible 90 hours a day!

Given they can eat 90 hours a day, or somehow much faster, they would have depleted their food sources
At over 10 tons, a Mamenchisaurus would have to eat over 1000lbs of vegetation each day. This would destroy the ecosystem.

Dinosaurs sizes are inconsistent with what we know about gravity
Given what we know about biology and the limitations of muscles in any life form, any animal weighing more than 20,803 lbs would not be able to lift its own weight (Holden 1994). A long necked dinosaur would not be able to lift its neck, and their blood pressure would cause their heart to explode. A girafee is at about the peak for neck size; any longer and it would die with a blood pressure higher than any other animal.

Where are all the fossils?
Why aren't we finding dinosaur bones in our backyard? They lived everywhere, didn't they?

Carbon dating does not go back more than 40k years
A full dinosaur skeleton has never been found

Perhaps you ought to have a look at some of the messed up mammals that are living today.

Quote from: John Davis on December 18, 2016, 01:23:20 PM

Quote

John the shortest distance between two points on a flat surface is a straight line.

Show this is the case, presuming you mean any flat surface, and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Also, why it is relevant.

The triangle inequality, a <= b+c is true in flat space.
Consider the straight line AB and some curve c that goes from A to B and isn't equal to AB.
A set of C points will be used to approximate c.
Step 1
Pick a point C1 on c, the path A,C1, B is clearly longer than AB by the triangle inequality.
Step n
Pick another point Cn on the path c, then find the points Cr and Cs that are before and after Cn on the curve c.
The path Cr,Cn,Cs is longer or equal to the path Cr,Cs by the triangle inequality. So the approximation of c given by the n C points is still longer than AB.
So by induction any approximation of a curve from A to B by a finite number of points is longer than AB.

This can be extended to the length of the curve itself.
Consider the sequence T. The value of Tn is the length of a finite approximation of c by a set of points where no two successive points are more than 1/n distance apart. Also the approximation used for Tn+1 must contain all the points used for Tn.
The limit of the sequence will be greater than AB, and will be equal to the length of c.
Therefore the straight line AB is the shortest path between A and B.

I feel like my proof has been ignored.

Quote from: Empirical on December 18, 2016, 02:30:10 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 18, 2016, 01:23:20 PM

Quote

John the shortest distance between two points on a flat surface is a straight line.

Show this is the case, presuming you mean any flat surface, and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Also, why it is relevant.

The triangle inequality, a <= b+c is true in flat space.
Consider the straight line AB and some curve c that goes from A to B and isn't equal to AB.
A set of C points will be used to approximate c.
Step 1
Pick a point C1 on c, the path A,C1, B is clearly longer than AB by the triangle inequality.
Step n
Pick another point Cn on the path c, then find the points Cr and Cs that are before and after Cn on the curve c.
The path Cr,Cn,Cs is longer or equal to the path Cr,Cs by the triangle inequality. So the approximation of c given by the n C points is still longer than AB.
So by induction any approximation of a curve from A to B by a finite number of points is longer than AB.

This can be extended to the length of the curve itself.
Consider the sequence T. The value of Tn is the length of a finite approximation of c by a set of points where no two successive points are more than 1/n distance apart. Also the approximation used for Tn+1 must contain all the points used for Tn.
The limit of the sequence will be greater than AB, and will be equal to the length of c.
Therefore the straight line AB is the shortest path between A and B.

I feel like my proof has been ignored.

I missed it.

I'm sorry, you seem to be using some terms you haven't defined, such as some straight line AB. How exactly do you define a straight line? And such a straight line that lies from A to B?

Quote from: Empirical on December 24, 2016, 01:08:16 PM

Quote from: Empirical on December 18, 2016, 02:30:10 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 18, 2016, 01:23:20 PM

Quote

John the shortest distance between two points on a flat surface is a straight line.

Show this is the case, presuming you mean any flat surface, and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Also, why it is relevant.

The triangle inequality, a <= b+c is true in flat space.
Consider the straight line AB and some curve c that goes from A to B and isn't equal to AB.
A set of C points will be used to approximate c.
Step 1
Pick a point C1 on c, the path A,C1, B is clearly longer than AB by the triangle inequality.
Step n
Pick another point Cn on the path c, then find the points Cr and Cs that are before and after Cn on the curve c.
The path Cr,Cn,Cs is longer or equal to the path Cr,Cs by the triangle inequality. So the approximation of c given by the n C points is still longer than AB.
So by induction any approximation of a curve from A to B by a finite number of points is longer than AB.

This can be extended to the length of the curve itself.
Consider the sequence T. The value of Tn is the length of a finite approximation of c by a set of points where no two successive points are more than 1/n distance apart. Also the approximation used for Tn+1 must contain all the points used for Tn.
The limit of the sequence will be greater than AB, and will be equal to the length of c.
Therefore the straight line AB is the shortest path between A and B.

I feel like my proof has been ignored.

I missed it.

I'm sorry, you seem to be using some terms you haven't defined, such as some straight line AB. How exactly do you define a straight line? And such a straight line that lies from A to B?

I just meant the normal definition of a straight line, it's a primitive object of the geometry and any two points share a line. Come to think of it straight lines are normally given the property of being the shortest path between two set points, so my proof it a bit redundant if that is an axiom.

I have a feeling the definition of straight line is different in the geometry you have, so I think it would be easier if you give the axioms of it and I see if I can still find a proof.
Small question, what is it that makes you geometry flat instead of +/- curved?

Small question, what is it that makes you geometry flat instead of +/- curved?

How is that relevent to dinosaurs? Also isnt it curious that not one giant "dinosaur" bone was ever thought to be from an extinct exotic species before the 1800s? People always thought they were from giant men, as they resembled human bones. Why weren't skulls found? Where had they been hiding the thousands of years before "paleontology"?

Quote from: Empirical on December 26, 2016, 01:57:17 AM

Small question, what is it that makes you geometry flat instead of +/- curved?

How is that relevent to dinosaurs?

The OP started a discussion about geometry.

Quote

John the shortest distance between two points on a flat surface is a straight line.

Show this is the case, presuming you mean any flat surface, and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Also, why it is relevant.

Are you trying to lure John Davis into the woods?

That made me laugh. A lot.

So I guess thats the final nail in the coffin, yes? Dinsoaurs are fake. Otherwise humans would have found thier skulls long before the 1800s.

So I guess thats the final nail in the coffin, yes? Dinsoaurs are fake. Otherwise humans would have found thier skulls long before the 1800s.

John Davis claims Dinosaurs are fake, but fake fossils of giant humanoids are real.

Go figure.

I own a book that lends credit to giants. Its called Great Adventures and Explorations. On page 246 Magellan and his company encounter a man twice their size. "Our heads scarcely reached to his waist."

I own a book that lends credit to giants. Its called Great Adventures and Explorations. On page 246 Magellan and his company encounter a man twice their size. "Our heads scarcely reached to his waist."

There have been humans in the past century who stood nearly 9 feet tall. Is it entirely impossible that, at some time, somebody encountered a human that was taller?

This does not mean that the Giants were alien beings with laser chainsaws, as John Davis seems to think.

Sure a fluke in genetics would be a valid excuse, except the company goes on to discover an entire village of these giants.

Sure a fluke in genetics would be a valid excuse, except the company goes on to discover an entire village of these giants.

Speaking of genetics...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67131.0

So I guess thats the final nail in the coffin, yes? Dinsoaurs are fake. Otherwise humans would have found thier skulls long before the 1800s.

Or they found them but had no idea what they were looking at. Or they had no interest in digging deep into the ground just to find bones for no particular reason. Your conlcusion is flawed.

I own a book that lends credit to giants. Its called Great Adventures and Explorations. On page 246 Magellan and his company encounter a man twice their size. "Our heads scarcely reached to his waist."

A man, not men? So a single giant. That's easy.

It was not just one man, but many. And women, clothed no less, and wearing shoes and offering food. All huge in comparison to the explorers. The word giant is used throughout the passage.

It was not just one man, but many. And women, clothed no less, and wearing shoes and offering food. All huge in comparison to the explorers. The word giant is used throughout the passage.

If it was many men, and women, and not one, then why did you initially refer to Magellan's "discovery" as "a man" ?

Should I chalk it up to your general illiteracy?

So I guess thats the final nail in the coffin, yes? Dinsoaurs are fake. Otherwise humans would have found thier skulls long before the 1800s.

But they did, it's just that you've never taken the time to find out about it.

I own a book that lends credit to giants. Its called Great Adventures and Explorations. On page 246 Magellan and his company encounter a man twice their size. "Our heads scarcely reached to his waist."

You own a book!!!!....well fuck me sideways!.......wow...you own a book, then everything in it must be true because it's a book....and you own it. Well, I own a great number of books so there!  Lol...lol....lol...lol.....lol....

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on December 28, 2016, 12:42:19 PM

It was not just one man, but many. And women, clothed no less, and wearing shoes and offering food. All huge in comparison to the explorers. The word giant is used throughout the passage.

If it was many men, and women, and not one, then why did you initially refer to Magellan's "discovery" as "a man" ?

Should I chalk it up to your general illiteracy?

Illiteracy? Could you be any more of an asshole? They initially met with just one man, on the beach, near their ships, then were brought to their village composed entirely of giants. I was simply talking about the events taking place purely on page 246, in case you wished to look it up.

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on December 28, 2016, 11:22:25 AM

So I guess thats the final nail in the coffin, yes? Dinsoaurs are fake. Otherwise humans would have found thier skulls long before the 1800s.

But they did, it's just that you've never taken the time to find out about it.

Prove it, bub.

Illiteracy? Could you be any more of an asshole?

Did I hurt your feelings?

They initially met with just one man, on the beach, near their ships, then were brought to their village composed entirely of giants. I was simply talking about the events taking place purely on page 246, in case you wished to look it up.

Lies. They met with 1 man, and he was naked.

"One day we suddenly saw a naked man of giant stature on the shore of the port, dancing, singing, and throwing dust on his head. The captain-general [i.e., Magellan] sent one of our men to the giant so that he might perform the same actions as a sign of peace. Having done that, the man led the giant to an islet where the captain-general was waiting. When the giant was in the captain-general's and our presence he marveled greatly, and made signs with one finger raised upward, believing that we had come from the sky. He was so tall that we reached only to his waist, and he was well proportioned...

You are so incredibly naïve. Old sea charts used to say cryptic things like "here be dragons," I bet now you will tell me dragons used to kidnap damsels and hoard treasure until slain by a brave knight in shining armor.

Grow the fuck up.