Dinosaurs Have Skyscrapers and Cellphones? Maybe.

reply to post by Barcs


You never read the books have you?

Read the books first, then we can talk. That is my deal. Else, you have no standing.

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?

Going off orthodox science, the Moon WAS the asteroid. But it doesn't add up. why are we still here? Anyone with a open mind can tell that if something like that hit Earth, the Earth would be no more.

Plus, pseudoscience is better than the science we have today. They start on the ground, orthodox starts with rules. And apparently, those who have no rules are more likely to be successful.

Does it for a living? Now that is disturbing. Means two things, 1. they do it for money, or 2. They do it for fame.

This guy, along with 10000 others, do it for themselves. No livings, nothing. They want to get the word out, for no cost.

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


I wish it was as easy as that. But there are so many contradictions and paradoxes that it's insane.

Welcome to the info wars.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

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

That's not true. A closed system cannot lead to increased complexity.

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

You've fallen for someone that is a charlatan. Cater begins by stating quite clearly that he is making things up as he goes along. Why would I bother to read something like that for purposes other than lighthearted entertainment?

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Anyone with a open mind can tell that if something like that hit Earth, the Earth would be no more.

It doesn't take an open mind. It takes physics to see that the result of such a collision is dependent on the conditions at the time of the collision.

Plus, pseudoscience is better than the science we have today. They start on the ground, orthodox starts with rules. And apparently, those who have no rules are more likely to be successful.

That's the sort of nonsensical gibberish Cater states. Those who have no rules make up fantasies. That is what Cater does.

This guy, along with 10000 others, do it for themselves. No livings, nothing. They want to get the word out, for no cost.

Laughable.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Going off orthodox science, the Moon WAS the asteroid. But it doesn't add up. why are we still here? Anyone with a open mind can tell that if something like that hit Earth, the Earth would be no more.

Maybe because we were not here when the moon was formed and maybe the earth was not how it is now either. For a guy that claims to read books you dont seem very well read.

BBC Earth - Timeline Of course you will chose to reject it so what is your explanation?

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

You never read the books have you?

Read the books first, then we can talk. That is my deal. Else, you have no standing.

I'm still trying to justify taking the time to do so. I don't like wasting time and based on reviews, he's merely offering ideas and speculations, not facts. If you are familiar with these books, why not break down some of his arguments in this thread and show us where the science is wrong?

Going off orthodox science, the Moon WAS the asteroid. But it doesn't add up. why are we still here? Anyone with a open mind can tell that if something like that hit Earth, the Earth would be no more.

Please explain what orthodox science is and how it differs from conventional science. Science is not orthodox, by nature, it changes when new info becomes available.

Also you seem to be equating the collision that formed the moon, to the collision that ended the dinosaur era, when those 2 events are completely separate. The collision that formed the moon happened long before there was any life on the planet. If that collision happened today, it would exterminate all life on earth.

at the requirement of being open minded to notice that the earth would be gone if struck by an object. It doesn't matter how open minded you are, a guess is still a guess. Current understanding of math and science goes against it.

Plus, pseudoscience is better than the science we have today. They start on the ground, orthodox starts with rules. And apparently, those who have no rules are more likely to be successful.

Right. Science is so ridiculous for relying on past experiments and data when trying to make new discoveries or formulating a hypothesis. A far better way to gain knowledge is to guess out of thin air and believe anything that sounds outside the box, because if it's an open minded concept it's automatically right.

Science = fact based
Pseudoscience = guesswork.

Does it for a living? Now that is disturbing. Means two things, 1. they do it for money, or 2. They do it for fame.

Interesting. You are now privy to personal information in regards to why all scientists have become scientists. Amazing how you keep proving me wrong over and over again. Nobody would ever become a scientist because they were actually interested in science or the respective field they work in. It's all money and fame! Those evil scientists!!! Do you bring your PC to get fixed at an automobile repair shop? Scientific theories are formulated by experts in the field. They have merit and experiments support their conclusions.

Science is not written in stone, it's our best current understanding of how things work. If you've got a better understanding, then there should be facts to back it up. Otherwise your challenge to science holds no merit. Anybody can throw wild guesses around, but it gets us nowhere in the pursuit of knowledge. Lower the standards of science, to allow musings and guesswork and it will become much less reliable when applied in the real world. Because of science, you have access to a computer that can converse with somebody on the other side of the world. Would you appreciate more frequent crashes because the programmers decided to be open minded and try random new things that went against the current programming standards? Would it be better if your car broke down every 100 miles because manufacturers just guessed on the engine assembly rather than having some silly set of rules to follow? Sure, you don't have to follow the rules, but it will cause negative consequences. You will realize this when you get older. It's fun to be rebellious, but it will get you nowhere in life.

Originally posted by Tuttle
No evidence for it, that is generaly why we think, dont know for sure, but think they did not have sky scrapers and cellphones. There is no evidence for it. Generaly when there is no evidence for something, we do not generaly accept it as being true. On account of there being zero evidence.

They would have absolutely no clues or evidence that we went to Mars or had cities

Pretty sure when they find the wreckage of industrial cargo container ships and crude carriers the length of 4 football pitches, they would more than likely piece it together.

edit on 20-2-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)

After a number of years all of our accomplishments would be down the tubes and lost, regardless of how big of a structure it was. What that number is, I Don'.t know, but it is perfectly reasonable to think dinosaurs had technology

reply to post by NPigeon

After a number of years all of our accomplishments would be down the tubes and lost, regardless of how big of a structure it was. What that number is, I Don'.t know, but it is perfectly reasonable to think dinosaurs had technology

That's simply not true. Even jelly fish have been preserved for hundreds of millions of years as fossils and they have no hard parts at all.

We know about dinosaurs. We have seen evidence of their existence including nesting sites, footprints, and the manner in which they consumed each other and plants. There is no indication anywhere that they had technology. The reasonable assumption is that they did not have technology.

reply to post by stereologist

You've fallen for someone that is a charlatan. Cater begins by stating quite clearly that he is making things up as he goes along. Why would I bother to read something like that for purposes other than lighthearted entertainment?

Said who?

That's the sort of nonsensical gibberish Cater states. Those who have no rules make up fantasies. That is what Cater does.

said who?

reply to post by Barcs

Please explain what orthodox science is and how it differs from conventional science. Science is not orthodox, by nature, it changes when new info becomes available.

aren't you contradicting what you say? Conventional science is orthodox science, I just like hitting the core, that's all.

To add, your not willing to read?

But ok, not my position to force someone else to read it, just something to look over, nothing more.






















Double-thinker.

reply to post by colin42


Read over it, but there is another contradicting evidence that is swept under the rug.

The moon is 98% Earth's size. looked on the internet, 1:4 size. Information changes on the internet like nothing. But in books, the older they are, the more reliable they are.

It's just, nothing in science today adds up. I mean, what has the US as a nation done for it's people? Medical? Fail. Automotive? Fail. Education? Fail. Economy? Fail.

So far, I'm stepping on governement's toes for saying these things, and the way I see it, I see three trolls willing to stop at nothing to debunk what I've read, tried and experienced.

oh, and just to step on your toes, you sound like a scientist of the mainstream, so whatever I say is going out the other ear and the only thing to convince you that what I say is real is if all 5 of your common senses are stimulated.

Happy trails, sir.

reply to post by NPigeon


Technology has been lost.

An example, Noah and the ark.

Took him a long time to make something like that. But how it happened is the amazing thing. Clouds, ultra-dense clouds that is triggering mechanism for Earth if the sun is giving off too much radiation.

Only two ways that could of happened, 1. increase in sun activity, or 2. The Earth is closer to the sun than today's present condition.

Rained 40 days and 40 nights, with a accompaniment of 3-6 months on a ship. Any kind of technology would be wiped out by then, say for example a battery. If it's underwater for more than that, then it's corroded to rust.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Said who?

The answer to your question was in my post. The name is Cater. That is who stated they are making things up. I quoted where he made that statement.

this whole concept reminds me of 'Dr. Who and the Silurians'
a prehistoric race of intelligent dinosaurs/reptiles reappears and tries to reconquer earth. too bad about the apes infesting their home.

en.wikipedia.org...(Doctor_Who)

reply to post by FreedomCommander

The moon is 98% Earth's size. looked on the internet, 1:4 size. Information changes on the internet like nothing. But in books, the older they are, the more reliable they are.

The Moon is not 98% Earth's size and never has been. It is a small fraction of the Earth in mass, volume, and diameter. Please provide a source showing otherwise.

It's just, nothing in science today adds up. I mean, what has the US as a nation done for it's people? Medical? Fail. Automotive? Fail. Education? Fail. Economy? Fail.

Please provide more than your unsubstantiated and vague opinion. Nothing you list has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

So far, I'm stepping on governement's toes for saying these things, and the way I see it, I see three trolls willing to stop at nothing to debunk what I've read, tried and experienced.

So far you've stated very little.

oh, and just to step on your toes, you sound like a scientist of the mainstream, so whatever I say is going out the other ear and the only thing to convince you that what I say is real is if all 5 of your common senses are stimulated.

Often people admit to me that their outright rejection of science is caused by having flunked out of school. In only a few people is it due to religious reasons. Most people I know are not interested in science, but do not despise it; they simply ignore it. There are people that appear to be "hard wired" to reject anything they deem to be authority. If a statement is made by a group or individual that they deem to be an authority then they automatically latch onto an opposing point of view. This is what supports many long disproved concepts such as the expanding earth theory, or the Lemuria and Atlantis and Mu theories.

So far nothing at all has been offered to substantiate anything about dinosaurs and technology.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Technology has been lost.

An example, Noah and the ark.

There never was a global flood as described in the bible.

Only two ways that could of happened, 1. increase in sun activity, or 2. The Earth is closer to the sun than today's present condition.

At present the Earth moves away from the Sun each year at a rate of about 15cm per year. The change in distance in the last million years is 150km which is a minuscule fraction of the 150,000,000km it is from Earth to Sun.

Rained 40 days and 40 nights, with a accompaniment of 3-6 months on a ship. Any kind of technology would be wiped out by then, say for example a battery. If it's underwater for more than that, then it's corroded to rust.

The problem is that there never was such an event. There never has been a global flood. Lots of objects survive thousands of years in the ocean and are brought up. Read anything about marine archaeology and learn how completely and utterly wrong this statement is.

Here is a ship that was on the sea bottom for over 3000 years.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Read over it, but there is another contradicting evidence that is swept under the rug.

And that has to do with how the moon was formed how?

The moon is 98% Earth's size. looked on the internet, 1:4 size.

Moon Compared to Earth It shows

1. The Moon is approximately 27% the size of the Earth.
2. The volume of the Moon is only 2% compared to the volume of the Earth.
3. The mass of the Moon is only 1.2% of the mass of the Earth
4. 81 Moons = 1 Earth hardly 1:4

Information changes on the internet like nothing. But in books, the older they are, the more reliable they are.

Nope. You just need to be careful of the sources just as you have to be careful with books.

It's just, nothing in science today adds up. I mean, what has the US as a nation done for it's people? Medical? Fail. Automotive? Fail. Education? Fail. Economy? Fail.

What has the US domestic policies to do with science not adding up? Science

So far, I'm stepping on governement's toes for saying these things, and the way I see it, I see three trolls willing to stop at nothing to debunk what I've read, tried and experienced.

So far you have not made any sense what so ever. Really what is the above meant to mean?

oh, and just to step on your toes, you sound like a scientist of the mainstream, so whatever I say is going out the other ear and the only thing to convince you that what I say is real is if all 5 of your common senses are stimulated.

Nope. First I am not a scientist and if I have deciphered the above correctly all you need to do is provide an argument backed with evidence for me to consider. You have done neither.

A valid argument about dinosaurs and technology is not that everything is gone since we know that is not the case. We definitely find dinosaur fossils. Their bones are found, their nesting sites are found, their tracks are found. Four mummified dinosaurs have been found. Skin impressions have been found. Dinosaur droppings have been found.

Where is any evidence of technology?

It won't all disappear. There are eggs with young in them. Yet people claim that sturdier things like cellphones would disappear without a trace.
www.nationalgeographic.com...

reply to post by stereologist
Not just are there no signs of a high tech prehistoric past there are no signs of that technology evolving as we see with our history

No foundations of buildings in the layers associated with dinosaurs, no signs of pollution or simple stone tools either. We do have fossil evidence of feathers, microbes.

Even ants nest from 10 million years ago have been found Prehistoric Ants Nest If dinosaurs had a high civilisation or even a simple civilisation we would find evidence and we don’t.

reply to post by stereologist


That didn't answer my question, who said that that man is a fraud? Is it you? If so, then your the fraud.