It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

page: 8
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The ice age where glaciers covered the earth was a function of Earth's transition out of Saturn's orbit into the Sun's. With no near by heat source, the Earth froze over.

Here's yet another problem with your "ideas".
People and animals were alive during the last ice age. With no nearby heat source, nothing would survive. This doesn't take into account gravitational shifts, etc.. that would happen if what you say is true....it's not



The exact details of how this transition occurred are still too obscure to be detailed, but there is no other plausible explanation that fits all the observed facts. At least not to my satisfaction.

If you have all this information to come to this conclusion, then many details of how your transition occured, would not be too obscure. Either you have the information to support your "idea" or you don't and in that case, you have nothing more then a un-educated, un-supported, guess based on a feeling. That's about the worst kind of psuedo-scientific crap I've ever heard of.


Carbon 14 dates are wrong because they depend on the assumption of a stable sun and a stable orbit around that sun. Since I doubt this is the case, we can toss carbon dating out the window.

Just because you doubt the carbon 14 dating, we're not going to throw it out the window unless you can PROVE what you're saying. Of course you can't or you would have done so by now.

And why aren't you answering any of my questions? I've proven you wrong over and over and each time you respond, you do so by bringing up a different subject. Your credibility is SHOT !




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



That's my whole point. If astrology were real, it could be measured in some way as it's affects would be observable.


I am not going to debate the validity of astrology. I WILL state that where astrology is deemed an art and not so much a career, you DO see some very uncanny predictions. Has science studied this, or did it just dismiss it out of hand?

I think i know the answer: they just dismissed it out of hand. That, my friend, is not science. Science is not supposed to have preconceptions and prejudice.


Science doesn't ignore these things because they want to. Science dismisses based on lack of observable evidence. That's the difference between science and faith.


A lack of observable evidence??? Have you ever read over the results of Hal Puthoffs work at SRI?

How about the multiple admissions from various PTB's in science that stated that they didn't even want to see the CRV test results? They refused delivery. Is such embracing of ignorance truly called "science"?


Actually it doesn't. Sometimes individual scientists do but not science as a whole.


And that is the problem: science is composed of these individual scientists, many of whom have the power and control to withold information from the public domain. This means that there are volumes of observations, facts, and information that never are even seen by the average person. This sounds an aweful lot like religion to me.


I could defend it all day with factual information but this person in particular will refuse to believe the massive amounts of facts over his belief system.


But remember, the person you are talking to is not the audience you are trying to reach.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
sir, you keep asking me to prove it.

I can't prove it any more than you can prove your theories.

However when applying logical and rational thinking, my theories are superior.

So we can debate all day, it comes down to which theory makes more logical and rational sense given the known facts.

Current theory fails the logic test in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


That is a great question. Back in 2000, 2001, you could find images of Stucky on the web. Now the greedy folks who own him won't allow it any further.

Honestly? I think he was mummified.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Your video isn't working.

It is now.


But to put it in perspective, I think your theories make a lot less sense than my theories.

Of course because you're brainwashed.


What makes sense is a lower gravity field.

No it doesn't.
I've even shown you in your own link regarding flying pterosaurs, that you're wrong. I posted additional information regarding Sato (the researcher on your link). In addition, Sato's research is listed as PRELIMINARY.


What does not make sense is dinosaurs evolving into massive beasts with huge necks they couldn't lift above their waists.

Already explained one possible reason.


Giraffes don't have long necks for field grazing, they have long necks to reach the bottom branches of the trees they eat from, which themselves evolved to keep the grass eaters from eating them.

Because they evolved DIFFERENTLY from Sauropods.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
sir, you keep asking me to prove it.

I can't prove it any more than you can prove your theories.

However when applying logical and rational thinking, my theories are superior.

So we can debate all day, it comes down to which theory makes more logical and rational sense given the known facts.

Current theory fails the logic test in my opinion.



To me it is more that the Plasma Cosmology concepts make perfectly good sense. And the standard model, while being sensible, has obvious holes in it.

I would not vehemently defend one model over the other. I will just say that until we get a model that isn't all full of holes we should keep our options open.

The really sad part is, in academia you are only taught the standard model. This perpetuates it as "fact" when we all know it is less "fact" and more "better than the previous alternatives".



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Your video isn't working.

It is now.


But to put it in perspective, I think your theories make a lot less sense than my theories.

Of course because you're brainwashed.


What makes sense is a lower gravity field.

No it doesn't.
I've even shown you in your own link regarding flying pterosaurs, that you're wrong. I posted additional information regarding Sato (the researcher on your link). In addition, Sato's research is listed as PRELIMINARY.


What does not make sense is dinosaurs evolving into massive beasts with huge necks they couldn't lift above their waists.

Already explained one possible reason.


Giraffes don't have long necks for field grazing, they have long necks to reach the bottom branches of the trees they eat from, which themselves evolved to keep the grass eaters from eating them.

Because they evolved DIFFERENTLY from Sauropods.


Your possible reasons make no logical sense.

It is not logical that sauropods evolved to be massive creatures with huge necks if they couldn't lift those necks above their waists.

I personally think you are the one who as been brainwashed. Mainstream science has a lot of careers its trying to protect with its theories. Starting at the very top of the sciences.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jfj123
 



That's my whole point. If astrology were real, it could be measured in some way as it's affects would be observable.


I am not going to debate the validity of astrology. I WILL state that where astrology is deemed an art and not so much a career, you DO see some very uncanny predictions. Has science studied this, or did it just dismiss it out of hand?

I think i know the answer: they just dismissed it out of hand. That, my friend, is not science. Science is not supposed to have preconceptions and prejudice.

Ever hear of Project Stargate? Looks as if Science hasn't dismissed the paranormal out of hand after all huh? There are other examples but this one is the easiest to find info about

was the umbrella code name of one of several sub-projects established by the U.S. Federal Government to investigate the reality, and potential military and domestic applications, of psychic phenomena, particularly "remote viewing:" the purported ability to psychically "see" events, sites, or information from a great distance.[2] These projects were active from the 1970s through 1995, and followed up early psychic research done at The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), The American Society for Psychical Research, and other psychical research labs. [3]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by mnemeth1
sir, you keep asking me to prove it.

I can't prove it any more than you can prove your theories.

However when applying logical and rational thinking, my theories are superior.

So we can debate all day, it comes down to which theory makes more logical and rational sense given the known facts.

Current theory fails the logic test in my opinion.



To me it is more that the Plasma Cosmology concepts make perfectly good sense. And the standard model, while being sensible, has obvious holes in it.

I would not vehemently defend one model over the other. I will just say that until we get a model that isn't all full of holes we should keep our options open.

The really sad part is, in academia you are only taught the standard model. This perpetuates it as "fact" when we all know it is less "fact" and more "better than the previous alternatives".


I fully concur.

I know plasma cosmology hasn't been fully fleshed out yet, simply due to the fact not enough people are studying it. As more scientists get involved, I'm sure more answers to the questions of the universe will come forward.

However I am willing to flatly reject standard theory. I think it has been fully falsified.

It has turned into nothing more than wild speculation backed up by hypothetical theories based on no tangible evidence.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm sorry, but you really should start reading good science, and try to wean yourself from such rubish that some one or some group is trying to feed you. It's embarrassing to read what you purport.

Here, try to explain Antarctic ice cores:


ScienceDaily (June 11, 2004) — Secrets of the Earth's past climate locked in a three-kilometre long Antarctic ice core are revealed this week in the journal Nature. The core from Dome C, high on East Antarctica's plateau, contains snowfall from the last 740,000 years and is by far the oldest continuous climate record obtained from ice cores so far.

Ice core

Really, nothing you have posted has any basis whatsoever in science. IN FACT, there are far more refutations to what you claim (and I suspect you're just repeating nonsense from someone else, without realizing it, because for some reason they've convinced you).

The things you've written would be laughable, except it seems you actually believe them, and that makes it sad, to me.

Just a few scientific disciplines that you should do some research into, if you dare. They will show you the fallacy in these other notions:

Astronomy
Astrophysics
Orbital Mechanics
Geology
Anthropology
Biology
Organic Chemistry (this is a toughie, not for the faint of heart)

Well, that's just seven. Problem you're going to have is, all the various scientific disciplines agree, where there is overlap. AND that's points to the crux of the issue, here. NO ONE person can be an expert in all those fields, it's a rare individual who can claim expertise in two simultaneously.

THAT is why there exist specialists. Who are accepted, peer reviewed, strongly examined and shown to be capable.

"Fringe" ideas are nice, that IS the nature of expansion of scientific horizons, but, let's face it --- what you've been spouting here is flat out nonsense, with NO corrobating data. It is speculative, only. And, by 'specualtive', I mean it is pure guessing, with no basis in sound experimentation, repeatable observation, or verifiable repeatable results by others conducting similar research. THAT is the scientific method.

Not merely "wishing" it were so, and then twisting and 'supposing' something outrageous just to be outrageous!!



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

It is not logical that sauropods evolved to be massive creatures with huge necks if they couldn't lift those necks above their waists.







I agree with this point. IF they could not lift their necks above their waists, they would have been quick fodder for the carnivorous beasts walking the Earth then.

Of course, if a sauropod could evolve with such a neck and survive, it is entirely feasible that humans could do the same.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
sir, you keep asking me to prove it.

I can't prove it any more than you can prove your theories.

Actually the first thing you need to understand is what a Scientific Theory is:

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

So yes I can prove my arguments based on theory



However when applying logical and rational thinking, my theories are superior.

Only in your mind.


So we can debate all day, it comes down to which theory makes more logical and rational sense given the known facts.

You actually don't have a "theory", you have an "idea".


Current theory fails the logic test in my opinion

That's the nice thing. Everyone can have their own opinion, even when YOU'RE wrong


I have also noticed that you've never addressed my responses such as the fact that your own link regarding pterosaurs not being able to fly, doesn't say they can't . Or my link that expands on Sato's research.
I guess you're not responding because you know you're wrong and don't want to look bad.
Or what about your question as to why evolution would demand a pterosaur jump off a cliff. I posted a video showing a FLYING SQUIRREL
Looks like we have a current example of evolution doing what you claim it would not


[edit on 2-8-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


explain why glaciers covered the continents.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I am fully aware of Stargate, Looking Glass, etc....

....that generally involves scientists who work for the government, however. Far less rigid of a think tank, in my opinion, as they have less leveraged against them (like funding).

But if you look into Ingo Swann, you will find many examples of prejudice.

If you want a good example of the prejudice i refer to, mosey on over to "badastronomy" forums and start talking about possible Moon life. You will see exactly how open minded science, on the whole, actually is.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1
sir, you keep asking me to prove it.

I can't prove it any more than you can prove your theories.

Actually the first thing you need to understand is what a Scientific Theory is:

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

So yes I can prove my arguments based on theory



However when applying logical and rational thinking, my theories are superior.

Only in your mind.


So we can debate all day, it comes down to which theory makes more logical and rational sense given the known facts.

You actually don't have a "theory", you have an "idea".


Current theory fails the logic test in my opinion

That's the nice thing. Everyone can have their own opinion, even when YOU'RE wrong


Saying "I'm wrong" doesn't make you right



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
reply to post by Sarkazmon
 


I hunt fossils for a living.....and I can tell you from my experience from what I have seen in the field that the like most things of importance that we have been lied too. The dinosaurs are only thousands of years old....died in the flood....and I don't use this info for gain on Christian views or beliefs.
And as a fossil collector , I am known as one of the best.... not bragging, just been told that by the people in that industry.


Anyone who actually believes this crap can't have much experience or education in the field of Paleontology.
There is no evidence to suggest a world wide flood let alone dinosaurs that are only a few thousand years old.

99% of all fossils are in sediment deposits.... what other proof due people need.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Saying "I'm wrong" doesn't make you right



No but proving you're wrong does

Which I have done over and over

Your failure to respond even adds to the validity of my arguments


Seriously, I don't know who convinced you this nonsense is real but please do yourself a favor and pull yourself away from this science fiction and get back to reality. My guess is you found a book that had some neat idea's and you just glommed onto it like a moth to a flame. Then once you got hooked, you found another and another and before you knew it, you belonged to the cult.
Please do yourself a favor and find a good deprogrammer.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm sorry, but you really should start reading good science, and try to wean yourself from such rubish that some one or some group is trying to feed you. It's embarrassing to read what you purport.

Here, try to explain Antarctic ice cores:


ScienceDaily (June 11, 2004) — Secrets of the Earth's past climate locked in a three-kilometre long Antarctic ice core are revealed this week in the journal Nature. The core from Dome C, high on East Antarctica's plateau, contains snowfall from the last 740,000 years and is by far the oldest continuous climate record obtained from ice cores so far.

Ice core

Really, nothing you have posted has any basis whatsoever in science. IN FACT, there are far more refutations to what you claim (and I suspect you're just repeating nonsense from someone else, without realizing it, because for some reason they've convinced you).

The things you've written would be laughable, except it seems you actually believe them, and that makes it sad, to me.

Just a few scientific disciplines that you should do some research into, if you dare. They will show you the fallacy in these other notions:

Astronomy
Astrophysics
Orbital Mechanics
Geology
Anthropology
Biology
Organic Chemistry (this is a toughie, not for the faint of heart)

Well, that's just seven. Problem you're going to have is, all the various scientific disciplines agree, where there is overlap. AND that's points to the crux of the issue, here. NO ONE person can be an expert in all those fields, it's a rare individual who can claim expertise in two simultaneously.

THAT is why there exist specialists. Who are accepted, peer reviewed, strongly examined and shown to be capable.

"Fringe" ideas are nice, that IS the nature of expansion of scientific horizons, but, let's face it --- what you've been spouting here is flat out nonsense, with NO corrobating data. It is speculative, only. And, by 'specualtive', I mean it is pure guessing, with no basis in sound experimentation, repeatable observation, or verifiable repeatable results by others conducting similar research. THAT is the scientific method.

Not merely "wishing" it were so, and then twisting and 'supposing' something outrageous just to be outrageous!!







You know what, I have done a lot of research into those fields.

Let me show you what I found:




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Saying "I'm wrong" doesn't make you right



No but proving you're wrong does

Which I have done over and over

Your failure to respond even adds to the validity of my arguments


Seriously, I don't know who convinced you this nonsense is real but please do yourself a favor and pull yourself away from this science fiction and get back to reality. My guess is you found a book that had some neat idea's and you just glommed onto it like a moth to a flame. Then once you got hooked, you found another and another and before you knew it, you belonged to the cult.
Please do yourself a favor and find a good deprogrammer.


I think if anyone needs a good "deprogrammer", its you.

I don't think you realize just how much current theory is backed up by nothing but wild speculation.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Heya, bfft,


...mosey on over to "badastronomy" forums and start talking about possible Moon life. You will see exactly how open minded science, on the whole, actually is.


I'm not much of an expert regarding dinosaurs on the Moon...


Jus' teasin'.

Didn't want to stray the topic, so I had to throw that it as I ask: Wouldn't 'science' have a different attitude, even if you 'moseyed over' to badas....tronomy, if someone had some sort of evidence, of siad Moon 'life'?

I just realized, I fell for it...a thread about dinos, and you said "life", and I immediately jumped to a mental image of multi-cellular creatures. Oooops.

I'd think, though, the scientific community wouldn't be all that hostile to possible microbial life, even on the Moon, right?? Haven't some Cosmologists hypothesized possible life on comets? Life is tenacious, we see that in a multitude of forms, here on Earth, with 'extremophiles' and such.....



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join