Dinosaurs Have Skyscrapers and Cellphones? Maybe.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

I give you evidence, you deny it.

You've provided no evidence.

All you've provided is some wacko claims and obviously false statements.

The 1/32 size of the Earth claim is total rubbish.
The gravity is EM is total rubbish.
The shoe print and the trilobite is a wacko claim based on apophenia.
The orthodox/unorthodox is more rubbish.
The BB analogy makes no sense.
The pyramid claim is more wacko unsubstantiated yuck.

You've told fairy tales and provided no evidence to support any of those tales except for pointing out the name of the person who claims a mineral stain is a shoe print. I have that article in my collection of hoaxes claimed by creationists.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Then you don't understand where I come from. I give people, like you, evidence and in return

You have made wild-eyed wacky claims and provided zero evidence except for the name of someone who posted a creationist hoax based on seeing a stain in a rock that looked to them like a shoe print. The person also claims to have a specimen showing a child's footprint. That rock is not shown. Why now show something other than a rounded blob?

I gave orthodox science a chance, and what has it brought me? Nothing but pain and sorrow and big hole in my wallet along with some idiot's view of the world.

That is the problem right there, isn't it? Is this a backlash to flunking out?

reply to post by stereologist

Read your own reply and notice how many times your questions are based on your assumption that any pre-existing technology would have to be identical or very similar to our own.
We have reached this point after ~10 million years of our first appearance if you accept evolution. If the dinosaurs lasted 165 million years then why couldn't their technology be 150 million years ahead of ours and you are the equivalent of someone claiming we could not have had radio since they have found no trace of vacuum tubes without considering the problem is their own ignorance of transistors.
Perhaps a civilization technologically 150 million years ahead of our own might have become wise enough to design all their goods to be biodegradable? Why the assumption they used metal or plastics?
Why do so many have such a hard time saying "Possible. Don't really know. Couldn't say"?

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Then you don't understand where I come from. I give people, like you, evidence and in return, instead of them saying, "Give me a minute, I'll look into it." all I get is "THIS IS BULLS***! YOU KILLED MY GOD!"

So if that is not open minded to you, then I don't know what the freak your talking about. CAPISCE!?

I sense tension building up here. You haven't given me evidence, you have only made claims. You talking about something does not make it fact or count as evidence. You need more than that. I could go off on a tangent ranting and raving about all kinds of stuff, but simply saying it, doesn't make it true.

I gave orthodox science a chance, and what has it brought me? Nothing but pain and sorrow and big hole in my wallet along with some idiot's view of the world.

What does that have to do with the validity of science? Your personal view of pain and sorrow and wasting money is irrelevant if you can repeat an experiment 100 times and get the same result.

Are you privy to information that the rest of us are not? I'm interested in where you get your info and why you believe it to be true and "orthodox" science to be false.

Originally posted by Puck 22
We have reached this point after ~10 million years of our first appearance if you accept evolution.

10 million years? Homo sapiens have only been around 200-300,000 years, not 10 million. Hominids as a whole (homo genus) is 2.5 million years.

If the dinosaurs lasted 165 million years then why couldn't their technology be 150 million years ahead of ours and you are the equivalent of someone claiming we could not have had radio since they have found no trace of vacuum tubes without considering the problem is their own ignorance of transistors.

People seem to think that a dinosaur is a type of species. The term describes pretty much every animal species on earth at the time. The dinosaurs at the beginning of the Triassic period where much different than the ones at the end of the Cretaceous. That's too big a generalization. That's like saying mammals rather than humans in regards to technology of today. Mammals have been ruling the planet for over 40 million years, yet only one species in the history of mammals has become intelligent enough to create technology. There are thousands of known dinosaurs and not one of them has the intellectual capability to think on the level of a human. If a dinosaur of this intellect existed, we have not found it yet. If technology existed, we haven't found it yet. What about white sharks that predate the dinosaurs? They have been around millions of years before the dinosaurs and millions of year after, yet they have no technology. It's about intellect, not simply time.

Perhaps a civilization technologically 150 million years ahead of our own might have become wise enough to design all their goods to be biodegradable? Why the assumption they used metal or plastics?
Why do so many have such a hard time saying "Possible. Don't really know. Couldn't say"?

Biodegradable stuff can still show up as fossils, so if they had technology, regardless of how advanced, chances are we would find it somewhere. Don't forget, bones are biodegradable, yet we seem to discover new species every year.

Anyways, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that we have not yet found evidence. IF there was a species of dinosaur that evolved to become thinkers and designers like humans they probably were not a global dominating species, they probably kept to themselves, hence why we haven't found them or their technology yet. If they were global we'd probably have found it by now.

reply to post by Barcs


I'll only focus on two things that are in relation to the main subject. This is truth, and something that "Orthodox scientist" are willing to sweep under the rug and say "All is good."

1. Granite roads. These kinds of roads are more resistant to any kind of corrosion and fracture, but how they got there is a real obvious answer. They were made by man's hands. Location, Entire continent of South America. Stated in Dead Man Secrets.

There was a thread that stated their envy on how perfect the mechanics back then were, in the B.C. time.

2. The Moon. It wasn't a asteroid the size of the USA, and it wasn't there before. What's more convincing is that the Moon missions are real, but they made a huge blooper, they slowed down the feeds. When the feeds are slowed down that just say, "The Moon is like Earth, only more rock." This was stated in a book called. "The Awesome Lifeforce" and "The Ultimate Reality." Written by Joseph H. Cater.

This is why I say the things I say, because they ring true to me, and if you think that this is Bull****, then say it. Else, look at it, search for it, find anything that your science says is false, and expose it.

My world is full of solved paradoxes, what is your filled with?

reply to post by Puck 22


The last question, because they hate looking like the fool.

Their pride is in their way and they are glued to a computer screen most of the time and don't look outside the box. Willing to believe everything that was pounded into their head by a idiot that was taught by an idiot. There is something wrong with this picture, and I'm at my limit on it.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

What you say is nothing short of mockery.

Nope. What I have written is correct. You supplied nonsense and ignored real evidence. You claimed science is a lie and I pointed out your claims are from personal ignorance. It is not mockery, it is correction. And now, matter of fact.

You didn't ask, you don't get anything.

I did ask. I asked for evidence to back your claim and you supplied none. If you mean I didn’t ask for your sagely wisdom then you are correct I didn’t ask and I still don’t want it if it comes with no evidence to back it.

The way I see it, you haven't even picked up a hammer to build something of use.

I spent twenty years as a brick layer. I believe I may have built and designed quite a bit but what has that to do with you supplying evidence?

So, why am I bothering with a lazy bum who doesn't have any balls?

You again failed to provide evidence. I on the other hand just carried out an investigation, found two and have again proved to my satisfaction that you are again very wrong.

Because it's worth at least a shot to show people what is out there and challenge them to pick up a book that isn't of college or mainstream media.

The challenge is not to be able to pick up a book or to pick up and read a book. The challenge is to pick that book up, read it, understand it and then challenge that books information from other independent sources.

Your nonsense claims show that you have done none of those things successfully.

reply to post by colin42


I stand corrected. Then, I can't provide evidence since it's not on the internet. Simple as that, no pictures, nothing. It's all in books.

Sorry for my attitude towards you, a simple misunderstanding and reflex when people mock. Mocking is where you jest with a person.

You were mocking sir.

Although, if your DYING for evidence, there is a book you can read. But I know you'll just say I'm dodging the question, which I'm not. But hey, they book's name is "The Awesome Lifeforce." link

I'm one who shows the door, it's up to the person on whether they open it or not, and I'm getting tired of it.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

I stand corrected. Then, I can't provide evidence since it's not on the internet. Simple as that, no pictures, nothing. It's all in books.

There are many sources you can cite that support the comet being the cause or main cause for the demise of the dinosaurs and there are also many articles that challenge that.

You provided none. The argument you did supply was as you have had explained many times now, complete nonsense.

Sorry for my attitude towards you, a simple misunderstanding and reflex when people mock. Mocking is where you jest with a person.

You were mocking sir.

Why do you insist on replying as if you were from the 1800's? You went on to ask how I know I have a brain and I told you. Your reply was pretty rude TBH and did not attempt to address my reply in any way. Again you have replied to my post without addressing the content. A reply to another of your baseless personal insults

I'm one who shows the door, it's up to the person on whether they open it or not, and I'm getting tired of it.

Again with the messiah complex. Who are you now, Morpheus?

Here is some advice from me. If you come on these threads with no argument and no supporting evidence and show intent of never giving any, then try to represent yourself as a Messiah then you should expect to be crucified

reply to post by Puck 22

Read your own reply and notice how many times your questions are based on your assumption that any pre-existing technology would have to be identical or very similar to our own.

Maybe you didn't realize it, but I simply list broad classes of materials that can be made either intentionally or unintentionally. Nothing at all suggests that dinosaurs had behaviors outside of the behaviors of other animals.

We have reached this point after ~10 million years of our first appearance if you accept evolution. If the dinosaurs lasted 165 million years then why couldn't their technology be 150 million years ahead of ours and you are the equivalent of someone claiming we could not have had radio since they have found no trace of vacuum tubes without considering the problem is their own ignorance of transistors.

An irrelevant argument about the vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes use glass and metals and ceramics and possibly other materials and no such materials have ever been found outside of the context of humans.

Perhaps a civilization technologically 150 million years ahead of our own might have become wise enough to design all their goods to be biodegradable? Why the assumption they used metal or plastics?

Learn some physics and you can answer your own questions. Biological materials that are biodegradable are found all of the time. They are fossils. Where are these fossilized devices you postulate?

Why do so many have such a hard time saying "Possible. Don't really know. Couldn't say"?

Where is the evidence? Where is there anything at all other than your fantasizing?

reply to post by FreedomCommander

I'll only focus on two things that are in relation to the main subject. This is truth, and something that "Orthodox scientist" are willing to sweep under the rug and say "All is good."

A false claim possibly based on watching too many bad movies. Science does not sweep things under the rug. Please name a famous scientist that did not overturn people's thinking. Science idolizes those that show mistakes or develop new and profound thinking. Ever been to a science conference? I know the answer is no, because you have no idea how researchers pose new ideas and contest ideas.

This is why I say the things I say, because they ring true to me, and if you think that this is Bull****, then say it. Else, look at it, search for it, find anything that your science says is false, and expose it.

So you read some books and you took them hook, line, and sinker simply because they have been shown to be false. There are those that will latch onto an idea simply because it is demonstrably wrong. The rally cry is simply that it is being swept under the rug by mainstream science.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Their pride is in their way and they are glued to a computer screen most of the time and don't look outside the box. Willing to believe everything that was pounded into their head by a idiot that was taught by an idiot. There is something wrong with this picture, and I'm at my limit on it.

I've seen false pride get int he way of people when they do poorly in school. They think that it could not be themselves that is wrong, but rather the entire establishment is wrong. Everyone else is wrong, not me they say. I've seen this in kids at an early age. I've seen this in kids that flunk out of college. They claim their teachers are brainless and parroting the words of other brainless people.

People spouting such vitriol are often smart, but lazy. They have not applied their abilities. They seek solace in others that spout nonsense instead of doing the difficult of task actually learning. In that process of learning there is the introductory process of pouring information into people's heads. At the college level there is the deeper effort of discussing how something is known and the issues that back up an idea and issues that hint at other possibilities.

Is there any evidence for any materials being made by life before man? No. Do we find lithic tools with dinosaurs? Do we find buildings made by dinosaurs? No. Do we find ritualistic burials? No. Do we find any evidence of surgery by dinosaurs? No. Do we find dinosaur prosthetics? No. Do we find dinosaur jewelry? Do we find wood carvings? What do we find? We only find things that are suggestive of animal behavior we see even today such as making a nest.

Real scientists look, record, and analyze. They would relish the idea of finding a dinosaur tool. They would be incredibly famous if they discovered the use of tools by a species before man. They have not found evidence of tools such as the tools themselves or the signs of butchering marks on bones. This is what real scientists do.

I looked up this Cater and here is what he claims in his book:

Everything in the process of creation proceeds from the simple to the more complex. Every mechanical or electronic device, regardless of its complexity, operates according to a very few simple and easily understood principles

That is simply not true. No closed system can do that.

There are still many people whose minds have not been scrambled and ossified by institutions
of "higher learning," and who have some degree of intelligence and common sense.

There is the claim of nonsense. This sort of defense is put up early by hoaxers and those that flunked out of college. There is no need to place such a defense up unless you know that you are wrong.

It will be noted that the author has not been able to always supply theexact date and name of the publication from which certain informationhas been extracted. In such cases he was faced with the option
of either omitting or mentioning it. He always chose the latter. This, of course, is contrary to standard procedure and the rigid and unimaginative thinking of academic researchers. The reader can be assured that such informa-tion exists in some publication even if its author at the present time can-not put his finger
on it. Inclusion of such information has added to thebook and not detracted from it.

Here Cater explains why he makes stuff up. Cater also admits that his research is poor. Real academics make people do the hard work of justifying their efforts. References are important because people want to check what is being stated. Cater pretends that it is okay to fill a book with baloney that he makes up with his casual assurance to trust him. He asks for people to trust him, but not those that work in a realm where publications do not allow the "just trust me" plea.

The author has also been criticized for treating speculation and theory as though they are facts. To
put it bluntly this is a reflection of a mind of very limited comprehension steeped in the inflexible rules of the academic tradition.

Cater goes on with his ridiculous notion that his nonsense is as good or better than the work of others which require justification and cannot rely on making stuff up as he does.

Cater has little to offer than unsubstantiated claims that he justifies in a rather pathetic fashion. His claim is that the academic community spends too much time justifying, checking, and verifying their work. He calls making people's work accountable and verifiable inflexible.

Cater is a charlatan and anyone should be able to see through his flimsy and trite defense of his claimthat it is alright to make things up.

reply to post by Barcs

While there are those who would argue the 100,00-200,000 years figure you use I willingly concede these are the numbers used by establishment archaeologist today.
My 10 million year figure was to take us all the way back to our first ape ancestor. I did not want people saying I did not subtract enough from the dino's 165,000,000 years to allow for evolution.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Barcs

 

I'll only focus on two things that are in relation to the main subject. This is truth, and something that "Orthodox scientist" are willing to sweep under the rug and say "All is good."

1. Granite roads. These kinds of roads are more resistant to any kind of corrosion and fracture, but how they got there is a real obvious answer. They were made by man's hands. Location, Entire continent of South America. Stated in Dead Man Secrets.

There was a thread that stated their envy on how perfect the mechanics back then were, in the B.C. time.

What does this prove? What does this have to do with dinosaurs? Are you suggesting dinosaurs had roads? And you blindly believe this because it was stated in a book??? Funny you attack schools and science and demean people for believing the BOOKS written by experts on the subject, yet you go and get your information from a book and think yours is right. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. I want evidence. Anybody can write a book. You can't call something truth without evidence and right now your evidence does not exist. Please explain why the book you read is true, while the others that are based on fact and tangible experiments are wrong. I mean I've read Jurassic Park, so I guess that means dinosaurs are alive and well today, right?

2. The Moon. It wasn't a asteroid the size of the USA, and it wasn't there before. What's more convincing is that the Moon missions are real, but they made a huge blooper, they slowed down the feeds. When the feeds are slowed down that just say, "The Moon is like Earth, only more rock." This was stated in a book called. "The Awesome Lifeforce" and "The Ultimate Reality." Written by Joseph H. Cater.

This is why I say the things I say, because they ring true to me, and if you think that this is Bull****, then say it. Else, look at it, search for it, find anything that your science says is false, and expose it.

My world is full of solved paradoxes, what is your filled with?

Again you offer an argument with no context. What does the moon have to do with anything? What does that prove? Where do the dinosaurs come in? You say what you say because you read it in a pseudoscience book, yet won't believe a single one written by an actual scientist that does it FOR A LIVING. I don't understand that logic. But you're open minded right?

Cater is not a scientist, nor does he use science. His books are listed as metaphysics books, not scientific ones. Basically they are guesses about our realty not fact. Anyways, still waiting for you to prove anything you have claimed. "XYZ says it in a book" is not proof. Show me the experiments he has utilized to show his facts.

Originally posted by Puck 22
reply to post by Barcs

 

While there are those who would argue the 100,00-200,000 years figure you use I willingly concede these are the numbers used by establishment archaeologist today.
My 10 million year figure was to take us all the way back to our first ape ancestor. I did not want people saying I did not subtract enough from the dino's 165,000,000 years to allow for evolution.

Fair enough, but it would be much more logical to use the 40,000,000 year time span since it includes all mammals, since the 165,000,000 figure uses all dinosaurs. Since mammals came from dinosaurs, it also brings up the idea that intelligent life actually took closer to 200 million years to develop. It's not like intelligent life suddenly appeared. It developed slowly over time. Mammals slowly became smarter and eventually became bipedal and developed opposable thumbs, which led to the making of tools which was the first step. Looking at broad groups of species isn't the same as using a single species or even genus when making comparisons. Some dinosaurs were smart, most had an incredibly small brain to body ratio. But there are so many of them it only confuses things to generalize them all into one category of development.

Can't we all just agree that dinosaurs had jetpacks and Playstations?

Can't we all just... get alowng?

reply to post by stereologist


Whose denying reality here? I've tried his stuff, it works.

I'm not fighting you on this one, your just a waste of my time.

And if you want standing, read his books. Else, your just spouting nonsense.

"Never utter these words `I do not know this, therefore it is false.` One must study to know; know to understand; understand to judge"