Prehistoric footprints.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Raggedyman

Actually you are correct, current THEORY, not FACT but that is something some people (not you) simply don't seem able to understand, nevertheless I digress, Current THEORY is that Bird's and other Avien Species are descended from the Raptor family of what we today call Dinosaur's.

You are confusing a laymans theory with a scientific theory. And sorry for being pedantic but today's birds aren't descended from raptors. They are related but today's birds stem from the clade maniraptora which are Coelursaurs and a part of the suborder Theropoda which includes T-Rex and velociraptors.

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Link

But according to theory they also arose and took dominance from giant insect's whose reign as the dominant mega fauna they believe reached a peak about 300 million years ago and included spiders with body's the size of human head's which hid in burrows like giant funnel web spiders (though technically Spiders were arachnid's), dragonfiles several feet in length with wing spans in the meters etc.

You're grossly over exaggerating the size of these creatures. The largest spider fossil known stretches only 2" from end to end and is around 165 MA. The dragonfly a were not several feet long. They had a wingspan a little of 2 ft not several meters. Like the scorpions you reference, they were large by today's standards but nowhere near as big as you state.

And of course before them they believe there were semi aquatic scorpians the size of a volkswagon beetle that both roamed the sea and the land.

You're referring to 2 different types of scorpions. One was a sea creature and yes, it was roughly 8 ft. Long. The land version was , while still huge by today's standards, only 2 ft long.

You know when you are riding your bicycle up hill on a hot day with your mouth open to ghasp at breath and you always swallow a darned fly, imagine one of those thing's?, talk about adding to daily protein intake.

Seriously though it is Theory, Idea etc,

That's not what a scientific theory is though. That only applies to Scooby, Shaggy, Fred, Daphne and Velma when they get a hunch. Completely different concepts.

sometime's enough of a fossil survives to see what the creature must have looked like but that is seriously a very rare find, most of the time what they find are bone fragment's, displaced bone's and they then try to figure out what they have by seeing if they can piece them together, or to compare them to other bone's found elsewhere and see if they have a match so then from this incomplete jigsaw they postulate a theory (an idea) and then it is either accepted as likely by LIKE mind's or it is not especially when it is facing a competing theory with it's origin within in the same peer group and there is the real crux, if the theory is proposed from outside the peer group it is most often rejected out of hand.

That's complete bull. You don't propose a theory, whether "inside the group" or outside of it. You propose a hypothesis then gather evidence to test it. If the hypothesis is able to prove these observation or postulations as fact then you're cooking with fire. It doesn't matter who proposes it. If the data is valid them the data is valid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I haven't seen anything that purports to compete with MES manage that level of evidence. Please feel free to cite some if you believe it exists but to keep pushing that a theory in science is just an idea is completely disingenuous and outright fraudulent. There's no truth to it whatsoever.

As for Theories being accepted because you are proposing it to like minds...again it's bullocks. The level of competitiveness in these fields is off the charts. When you author or coauthor a paper, these "like minded" peers want nothing more than to shred your data and find flaws in it. There's not an old boys network in anthropology where we drink cognac smoke monte cristo's and pat each other on the back after a long day of battling young earth creationists.

BUT no where in Scientific tenet is a theory ever regarded as an immutable fact, you can have an immutable quantity or mathematic function but not an immutable theorem, in fact one TENET (Latin for it is held often shown as an un-beakable rule) of science that ANY theory may be supported by evidence (And that is based in this case on subjective analysis which can be quite biased) but never proven (never made immutable)

Can you provide a citation that backs this up because every source I've read going back to the late 80's concurs with the definition of a Scientific Theory I posted above and none of them resemble your version. Moving forward, a Scientific Theory is comprised of proven facts and then serves how to explain these facts so it's just not true to say that evolution is only a theory and can't be proven. It's an established fact and Modern Evolutionary Synthesis explains how the mechanisms of evolution work. Plate tectonics? A theory. Gravity? A theory. Heliocentric model of the solar system? Yup... A theory. Yes, the theory can be refined when new data and evidence becomes available but that doesn't negate the theory itself. If you have some sort of earth shattering evidence the debunks MES I encourage you to present it and accept your Nobel.

but any theorem can be disproved by any evidence to the contrary - in recent years at the highest level's of theoretical physic's they have had to bend this rule as otherwise all theory's they work by would have had to be thrown out so they created the concept of Chaos theory to explain divergent results which would not happen if there main theorys were perfect (correct).

Physics has nothing to do with any of this though.

Most of there ideas for these period's are from fossil bed's such as those in the USA and China though many fossils have been found around the world of similar types.

It's nowhere near as myopic as you make it seem. There are fossils found on every continent including Antarctica.

So walking with Crocodiles is according to there believe one better than walking with a dynosaur as the Crocodile is older than the Dynosaurs were.

Nice strawman! Not at all true but I applaud the effort.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Nope, and I call 100% bs that a guy with those qualifications taught you that.
No scientist is going to call a scientific theory just an idea.

Either that or you widely misunderstood what was being said, I hear alot of things students think our professor 'taught' when it was really they just misunderstood it.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You son have no idea what you are calling BS and I really do think you are just acting like a troll, my former lecturer is now in a wheel chair but I suspect he could still talk your professor under the table, never mind you with such a small outlook and large opinion of one's self, NEVER critiscize a man you do not know and are not worthy to speak of he sacrificed his long term career and ended up teaching because he had PRINCIPLES do you even know what they are son.

a reply to: peter vlar

Once again I can count the size of the group by the number of star's, it is a self evident presence of a small handful of troll like individual's with a twisted sense of self right based on the shaky assumption that they are, you sir are also in the wrong but I will no longer debate that point as it is like trying to teach a penguin to talk.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I was calling bs on you, not him.

I don't think he taught you that, it goes against everything that science stands for.
Interesting how you have now resorted to ad homs and anecdotal points at this point but then want to turn around and say this debate is like teaching a penguin to talk..

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: peter vlar

Once again I can count the size of the group by the number of star's, it is a self evident presence of a small handful of troll like individual's with a twisted sense of self right based on the shaky assumption that they are, you sir are also in the wrong but I will no longer debate that point as it is like trying to teach a penguin to talk.

When did the number of stars a post receives become a corollary for the accuracy of the information I provide? Please, tell me where I went wrong. I'll even put on a tuxedo and waddle around on some ice.

The fact is though that you are once again conflating the Scooby Doo definition of a theory with the definition of a scientific theory. I'm wrong all the time. Please elucidate me on what my errors are. It's not like I didn't provide a citation for my claim. Give it a try, it might grow on you.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

No I have not clicked the wrong thread, I have seen how many gang up and tear into anyone that show's the slightest interest in the possibility of evidence proving human's or something human like lived long before it was supposed to, it is like watching a pack of wolves circle a lone sheep salivating and waiting for the kill and I Swear that some of them are more interesting in winning an argument than the fact's.

Okay, I apologize, I must have misunderstood your intentions. I saw a bunch of links about the face on mars and other oddities in space, but nothing about prehistoric footprints, which is the topic. Maybe I'm just late to the party