Dinosaurs Have Skyscrapers and Cellphones? Maybe.

reply to post by colin42


I cannot say anymore, since your set on your ways. What I was going to say was a test to see your own mind for yourself. However, it seems like I'm talking to a wall, dead and set.

Not a lot of people here are willing to look for themselves and not rely on others to make them happy.

This is not defeat, this is agreement. I have come from a different world of Academia, and there are others. That's all I have to say.

At least I will thank you for such a discussion.

reply to post by suicideeddie

its quite possible to have species of dinosaur to have at least developed basic tool use, language and problem solving skills. we have them present now in modern species. eg apes/monkeys/birds etc,
even having a more advanced tech could be possible and would be hard to detect and study if it was based on biotech rather than the mechanic tech we use now. eg harry harrisons eden series.

We see things in fossil evidence such as nest construction. What we do not find are foundations for houses or evidence of stockade fences around nesting sites. We do not find ritual burials as we do find with human ancestors.

Could a dinosaur have used a stick? Possibly. Could a dinosaur have tossed a stone? Maybe. But these are not things like cellphones and skyscrapers that have been mentioned in the title of the thread.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

I cannot say anymore, since your set on your ways. What I was going to say was a test to see your own mind for yourself. However, it seems like I'm talking to a wall, dead and set.

It has been an observation of mine that the most closed minds are loud about others being closed minded.

I was aware of the hoax about the footprint and the trilobite. I read the article. I have a paper copy of the article. I know its horse pucky, but I took the time to examine the claim.

Another sign of a closed mind is the call for censorship. In this case it is written as follows:

If you don't like that kind of logic, then why don't you go somewhere else?

Another clear sign of a closed mind. It's a call to shutdown discussions and deny other points of view.

The few comments have such completed wrong claims as follows:

The BB analogy is something every electrician, engineer, and scientist should know. And you forgot something, what is Gravity? A EM force operating at 1 terahertz with a wavelength of .3 to 4.3 mm.

Gravity is not EM.
The BB analogy is completely wrong.

Here is a common odd thing.

If you would be so kind to show me such findings, then I'll take into consideration a debate.

After posting complete rubbish with no supporting evidence there is a request for evidence from others.

The following is a mix bagged saying absolutely nothing. In fact, it looks a bit contradictory with talk of a war of words. That is orthodoxy according to the claim.

If nothing else, then we come from two different worlds of Academia. One being Orthodox which only has a mind of war, and one of Unorthodox which has a mind of peace. And this useless war of words and opinions is nothing more than a hindrance on advancement.

So if your bogus meter is on high, that says that it needs to be tested. If you would so kindly do so, I challenge.

It's a wack-o-meter. The wack-o-meter simply does not bother with unintelligible rubbish. It does go off with claims that the mineral stain is a shoe print, or that the Chicxulub crater was caused by a bolide 1/32 the size of the Earth, or that gravity is EM, or the pyramids were made by a small group in 6 months.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

I cannot say anymore, since your set on your ways.

I am not the one basing my views on nothing but ignorance. I base my opinion of evidence and when that evidence is correct my view will obviously not change unless of course someone can show that evidence false. I see no signs of that happening with you.

What I was going to say was a test to see your own mind for yourself. However, it seems like I'm talking to a wall, dead and set.

No you was asking me how I knew I had a brain if I had never seen it. I showed you by evidence and the only wall I am seeing here is the one you have built out of blocks of ignorance held together with a mortar made from denial.

Not a lot of people here are willing to look for themselves and not rely on others to make them happy.

Or could it be that not many people agree with you? As for your claim of not looking for themselves, you are the one that is not looking at the evidence for the comet strike and making fantastical claims to suit you wildly incorrect story.

This is not defeat, this is agreement. I have come from a different world of Academia, and there are others. That's all I have to say.

Another line of words that have no meaning

At least I will thank you for such a discussion.

Freedom. We have not had a discussion. If the OP topic has any value (I believe it does) it is as a challenge to use information and evidence and apply it to test a theory. Most have but you have not.

Do yourself a favour and do the research on the comet strike. Consider what you find correct and what you find in error and then make your case. You will expand your understanding and have fun when entering into real discussion rather than what has just taken place.

reply to post by Tuttle

Could be wrong but I think iron rusts away after about 5,000 years so the odds of any super cargo ships lasting 165 million years are really slim. 165 million years from now there would be nothing left but fossils and some new life form making fun of any of it's members that suggested that primitive homo sapiens might have had cell phones

reply to post by Puck 22

Could be wrong but I think iron rusts away after about 5,000 years so the odds of any super cargo ships lasting 165 million years are really slim. 165 million years from now there would be nothing left but fossils and some new life form making fun of any of it's members that suggested that primitive homo sapiens might have had cell phones

Why would only fossils be left? Fossils are often made of the harder parts of animals, but the softer tissues can leave fossil evidence as well. There are also fossil casts. There are fossil traces such as burrows and footprints. Impressions of leaves are found. A ship is more than iron. There are other materials that would be imbedded in the rust that might be detected. There would be brass and ceramics. There would be wood. What about plastic coated wiring? What about pipes? Would everything be gone?

Think about all of the fossils that have been found including 4 mummified dinosaurs. Why would harder and more durable materials disappear without a trace?

reply to post by Puck 22


Funny you mention that. I went to place in SC called "Sugarloaf Mountain". It is in the Sandhills. It is nothing but a pile of sand. But get this: It is a pile of sand capped with sand that had iron embedded in it. Now, I looked closely at that iron infused sand on the top of that "mountain". The sand itself is a different texture and size than the sand under it or around it. The sand is angular and sharp in the iron stone. The rest of it is small and rounded.

The geological history of the site according to geologists is this: The ocean retreated and sand blew for dozens of miles into dunes. Those dunes were covered by sediments. Iron from the ground water seeped into the sand in that spot and then concreted the sand together in that one spot. Then every last tiny bit of the sediments eroded away and left nothing but the sand. The iron infused sand was harder to erode than the sand without the iron and that is why there is a "mountain" there.

But then logic comes into play. If that were windblown sand then the edges would be smooth. If there had been sediments on top of the sand then there would be remains of it. There are none. Not one rock. I have dug into the sand 6ft down not 10 miles from that spot. I found large quartz nodules in the sand and there is no way hell it blew in from anywhere. There is nothing else in the sand. It is perfectly clean except for the rare quartz nodule. Wind blown dunes do not tend to be covered by sediments. The sand erodes away and is displaced. There is no mechanism for there to be high lands around that place to have produced the sediments. The closest would have been the central peidmont of NC/SC. But the same water that was providing the sediments would have washed away the sand. At the very least there would be sand free river channels but there are none.

Try as I might, I can not see how that area was covered with anything that eroded away except maybe more sand. So, if it was not from iron laden water seeping down through sediments then how did that iron get up there? Well, the general shape of the outcrop gives me a clue. It is about 100ft wide and about 500ft long and about 30ft thick. The rock outcrop is generally boat shaped. I can see a large ship, like a cargo ship sinking in shallow water. It laying there for millions of years and the rusting iron "melting" into the sand and cementing it together. Then the ocean levels fell and the sand began washing away. This left the iron infused sand high on a hill.

The only thing about that is that the area is around 65 million years old. So no one was around to make a ship or sail it. There are no remains of any ports anywhere. But what will those ships in the old bed of the Aral sea look like in a few million years? Bet they will be nothing but iron and sand fused together and sitting on little hills.

This is not proof of any ancient civilization nor is it proof dinosaurs were intelligent. There is another explanation for the out crop. Even if it is a silly one. But it does make me wonder a bit.

The entire geologic history of the sand hills and coastal plain make little sense. There is a definite shoreline at 250ft altitude on the East coast. It is clearly evident on Google Earth. Yet we are told this shoreline is 65 million years old and has been eroded out of hard sediment. I do not buy it. It looks much younger to me. It looks like the ocean was much higher in the not too distant past. Most of geology is guesswork anyhow. In my 40 years of investigating rocks and looking for the remains of ancient civilizations this one place is the best I have found. Nothing else comes close.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Barcs

 

It doesn't match up. Only a honest person would see the truth, and seek the truth.

Most of the craters of today are based off of assumptions. I can tell you what are those really, but I know you won't listen since you've already made your decision.

A comet of such size would of destroyed a planet. What was it? A million nukes going off?

Even if a planet is solid, which I know it isn't, would shatter if something like that hit Earth. All I can say is that assumption is not my cup of tea.

At least I will thank you for such a discussion.

What doesn't match up? Why are you suggesting I am dishonest, when you still haven't presented any facts? I love when people come into a thread, state a bunch of nonsense as fact and then insult anybody's intelligence that disagrees and / or presents facts to counter that. Sorry bud, you clearly said above you base your decisions on cold hard facts. Where are the ones that support your case? Why do you dismiss the science that I have posted as my personal opinion, when it is clearly not? You are just stating generalizations that are wrong. Please post your evidence that suggests the earth would shatter. Basically prove that ANYTHING you just said is not assumption. Good luck.

"I don't deal with assumptions, but the world is still flat. If you disagree you are just believing what others tell you and you are close minded. Only an honest person would see that."

reply to post by Barcs


Honesty or not, only a reasonable, anti-ego person would see truth, and not let others dictate what he/she sees and not to see.

That is the true purpose of truth.

Most of the people here think that they are wise. Guess again, even I do not claim to be wise.

"He who thinks of himself wise is a great fool." I plan on living by that.

What happened back than must of been like today only a little spice added.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Please stop the contentless posting and show us any evidence for any of the rather odd claims you have made. Here are a few of oddities you have posted without any supporting evidence:

1. the trilobite hoax
2. BB analogy
3. the 1/32 of the Earth claim
4. the gravity is EM claim
5. orthodox has only a mind of war claim
6. unorthodox has a mind of peace claim

reply to post by stereologist


Then what are you?

The way I see it, you rather have your claims follow through, when you don't even know your own home.

We've been through this, sir, and in the end it's always the same, you speak either a lie or a half-truth taught in school.

1. the trilobite hoax
2. BB analogy
3. the 1/32 of the Earth claim
4. the gravity is EM claim
5. orthodox has only a mind of war claim
6. unorthodox has a mind of peace claim

Let's think, whose wasting space? To me, those who are closed, directing towards you.

History has proven that orthodox science only has a mind of war, goes by the following, Allopathy, explosives science, weapons science, and others I cannot name off the top of my head

Unorthodox doesn't follow it because it already has it, yet refuses to use it for war, Orgone, homeopathics, occult, astrology. and others I cannot name off the top of my head.

This conversation between us is to end due to the enviable contention rising between the orthodox and unorthodox.

Good-bye, sir.

reply to post by Robonakka


I believe that the problem here is your confusion about the sequence of geological events. For example, you state that every last bit of sediment eroded away. Sand is part of the sediment. The existence of a hill shows that not all sediments eroded away.

But then logic comes into play.

And that is where you expound on your mistakes. What you point out are your misunderstandings of the geology of the area. It is not a situation of "look how easy it is to prove the geologists wrong", it is a case of "look how confused I am about what the geologists wrote."

For example, you claim there are no remains of the sediments that overlaid the existing material. Do you know what you are looking for? Can you identify the weathered material? How do you know that the quartz nodules are not that material? You suggest they did not blow in from somewhere. That sounds like confusion on your part. You do not recognize material that was lithified close to where you found it.

Here is another good one.

Wind blown dunes do not tend to be covered by sediments.

Guess you've never been to huge areas of WV where cross beds are common. You should check out Utah as well.

There is no mechanism for there to be high lands around that place to have produced the sediments.

Guess you should look into the manner in which barrier dunes move as sea levels change. Get a book on oceanography.

But the same water that was providing the sediments would have washed away the sand. At the very least there would be sand free river channels but there are none.

This is all confused rambling. Learn how waves distribute sands.

Try as I might, I can not see how that area was covered with anything that eroded away except maybe more sand. So, if it was not from iron laden water seeping down through sediments then how did that iron get up there? Well, the general shape of the outcrop gives me a clue. It is about 100ft wide and about 500ft long and about 30ft thick. The rock outcrop is generally boat shaped. I can see a large ship, like a cargo ship sinking in shallow water. It laying there for millions of years and the rusting iron "melting" into the sand and cementing it together. Then the ocean levels fell and the sand began washing away. This left the iron infused sand high on a hill.

You really should look into learning how clastics are cemented into rock.

The entire geologic history of the sand hills and coastal plain make little sense.

That's the key right there. You admit that you do not understand the well worked out ideas of geologists thus you make something else up instead of learning what others have determined.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Let's think, whose wasting space? To me, those who are closed, directing towards you.

History has proven that orthodox science only has a mind of war, goes by the following, Allopathy, explosives science, weapons science, and others I cannot name off the top of my head

Unorthodox doesn't follow it because it already has it, yet refuses to use it for war, Orgone, homeopathics, occult, astrology. and others I cannot name off the top of my head.

This conversation between us is to end due to the enviable contention rising between the orthodox and unorthodox.

Good-bye, sir.

That just confirms it for me. You're spouting nonsense and for no particular reason.

You made no effort to try and support the:
1. the trilobite hoax
2. BB analogy
3. the 1/32 of the Earth claim
4. the gravity is EM claim
5. orthodox has only a mind of war claim
6. unorthodox has a mind of peace claim

As I suggested before the closed minded ones are those that shout the loudest about others being closed minded.

Anytime you want to try and substantiate any of these claims these do.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Barcs

 

Honesty or not, only a reasonable, anti-ego person would see truth, and not let others dictate what he/she sees and not to see.

That is the true purpose of truth.

Truth doesn't have a purpose. It just is. What you do with it, is up to you. You create the purpose. Just like how the fact and truth of evolution is applied in modern medicine. It's not about wisdom or ego. It's about facts, and despite the fact that you have provided none, you can't seem to drop the 'holier than thou' attitude. Oh, I get it. You are right because you say you are right. No need to back anything up because you are anti ego and wouldn't dare refer to yourself as wise. It's just ironic considering you are trying to promote yourself as open minded, yet completely dismiss anything taught by science or school without even giving it a chance. That's REALLY open minded of you. That's like somebody going around preaching about how bad and evil pedophilia is, while at the same time having a young kid chained up in his basement for sexual favors.

I would love to get my hands on the Tyrannosaurus reXbox

I believe that the problem here is your confusion about the sequence of geological events. For example, you state that every last bit of sediment eroded away. Sand is part of the sediment. The existence of a hill shows that not all sediments eroded away.

I meant the other sediment excluding the sand.

But then logic comes into play.

And that is where you expound on your mistakes. What you point out are your misunderstandings of the geology of the area. It is not a situation of "look how easy it is to prove the geologists wrong", it is a case of "look how confused I am about what the geologists wrote."

For example, you claim there are no remains of the sediments that overlaid the existing material. Do you know what you are looking for? Can you identify the weathered material? How do you know that the quartz nodules are not that material? You suggest they did not blow in from somewhere. That sounds like confusion on your part. You do not recognize material that was lithified close to where you found it.

No, I don't. I am not a trained geologist. I learn all I can about it, but am no expert. I would figure there would be shales, limestones and sandstones above the sand. The sand is not lithified. It is loose. So there could not have been much above it. Otherwise it would be sandstone. Would it not?

Here is another good one.

Wind blown dunes do not tend to be covered by sediments.
Guess you've never been to huge areas of WV where cross beds are common. You should check out Utah as well.

I grew up in WV. I know the sequence of rock very well. Ocean, swamp, desert, ocean, swamp, desert. Missing from that sequence in SC is the swamp and ocean.

There is no mechanism for there to be high lands around that place to have produced the sediments.
Guess you should look into the manner in which barrier dunes move as sea levels change. Get a book on oceanography.

What does that have to do with this? The mountains of the piedmont were dropped 200 million years ago when Africa pulled away. There have not been any mountains here since before the sand was put down. So where did the overburden come from that supposedly washed away? Where did the covering come from? and how did it ALL wash away so evenly?

But the same water that was providing the sediments would have washed away the sand. At the very least there would be sand free river channels but there are none.
This is all confused rambling. Learn how waves distribute sands.

What waves? No one claims this was ocean. Rivers cut channels. They meander and move and wash away the sediments. Soft sand readily washes away. There should be places where the bare bedrock shows.

Try as I might, I can not see how that area was covered with anything that eroded away except maybe more sand. So, if it was not from iron laden water seeping down through sediments then how did that iron get up there? Well, the general shape of the outcrop gives me a clue. It is about 100ft wide and about 500ft long and about 30ft thick. The rock outcrop is generally boat shaped. I can see a large ship, like a cargo ship sinking in shallow water. It laying there for millions of years and the rusting iron "melting" into the sand and cementing it together. Then the ocean levels fell and the sand began washing away. This left the iron infused sand high on a hill.
You really should look into learning how clastics are cemented into rock.

There is no rock. It is all sand. Loose sand that can easily be dug with a shovel. The only rock is the sandstone made of iron rust and sand cemented together. The rest is sand and the very rare one inch square rounded quartz pebble. I understand how sandstone is made. Very well. But it "feels" wrong in this instance. To me it does not properly add up.

The entire geologic history of the sand hills and coastal plain make little sense.

That's the key right there. You admit that you do not understand the well worked out ideas of geologists thus you make something else up instead of learning what others have determined.

I do admit I do not know as much as I should about geology. Sometimes it does not add up. This is one case. The only case I know of that id does not add up. Although I do wonder about being told that 40 acre rock was shaped by ocean waves. It is hard to believe the ocean was ever in Pageland, SC.

Originally posted by WormwoodSquirm


I still remember my thoughts when I saw a timeline of life on Earth for the first time. Even as a child I said to myself, "how in the world have humans been here for so short a time and have the ability to make machines and incredibly complex technologies such as mastering the atom and flying to the moon?"

This line of thought really came to an explosion later in life in a University Neuroscience class on the evolution of the human brain, visual cortex etc.

I put my hand up and asked the professor and class, "if humans just appeared on Earth a little sliver of time ago, why didnt the Dinosaurs, who lived for like a hundred million years, why didnt they build skyscrapers and have cell phones?"

After a long pause the professor looked up at the class and answered, "who says they didn't?"

Needless to say this blew me away because he was 100% correct. How do we know what they did or had as a way of life on Earth? All we have are their bones/fossils, which are now so old they are rocks, to formulate theories about them and what they accomplished.

When it comes right down to it, nothing they ever accomplished to give us a good reliable theory about them has survived the millions of years.

Is it possible that a comet will someday wipe us out and hundreds of millions of years from now some being digs up a human bone fossil and says, "oh look, I found an old human arm fossil" and someone else responds, "ya those dumb things used to swing in trees and bark at each other. We think they may have even been able to dig termites out of logs with their oppose-able thumbs"

They would have absolutely no clues or evidence that we went to Mars or had cities, cellphones or anything. All they would find are fossils of us because everything else would be lost in time.

So reflect on that for a moment. Please do not flame me for suggesting Dinosaurs may have been more advanced than we are told because to simply accept that train of thought would be ignorant to facts.

If it is true that they were like dumb idiot lizard type bird things with no technology then why are humans so special? What caused humans to have these abilities so quickly? Intervention from other life forms? Creation by God type beings?

What are your thoughts on this subject?

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

edit on 20-2-2013 by WormwoodSquirm because: removed a word

You make a good point. Although mammals play such a significant role in today's world, they greatly vary in size. From the elephant to the mouse the sizes vary greatly. Then we have all the varieties such as cats, dogs, monkeys, apes, humans, mice, kangaroos, cows, sheep, camels... so much variety. There could have been similar variety then as well. Perhaps a specimen such as the velociraptor was much more advanced than we realize (or some other specimen, it didn't have to be that one). Perhaps there were species that had better appendages than we do, bigger brain cavities, better mental function. Perhaps that particular species was adamant about burning the dead instead of burying the dead and we've not found bones from them. There are a million "if's".
Who are we to say they didn't have any type of advancement or any technology at all?
Heck, listen to the people in today's world talking about "reptilians", if they were right (not saying they are because I think it's just silly), but those reptilians could be descended from the dinosaurs and not be "aliens" at all... millions and millions of "ifs".

reply to post by stereologist


We have been through this sir.

I give you evidence, you deny it.

no more.

Originally posted by Barcs

Truth doesn't have a purpose. It just is. What you do with it, is up to you.

You create the purpose. Just like how the fact and truth of evolution is applied in modern medicine. It's not about wisdom or ego. It's about facts, and despite the fact that you have provided none, you can't seem to drop the 'holier than thou' attitude.

Oh, I get it. You are right because you say you are right. No need to back anything up because you are anti ego and wouldn't dare refer to yourself as wise. It's just ironic considering you are trying to promote yourself as open minded, yet completely dismiss anything taught by science or school without even giving it a chance.

That's REALLY open minded of you.

That's like somebody going around preaching about how bad and evil pedophilia is, while at the same time having a young kid chained up in his basement for sexual favors.

edit on 5-3-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

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 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.

Long before I even thought of this, I gave people a chance. But to my dismay, they are low of morals, scruples, and overall conscience. I wanted to help, help people see what's out here, at no cost.

I need a guarantee that you, as a fellow person and a fellow scientist, that you won't follow the world, and just hear a drop of what I know.

Hear what truth I've learned outside the box. Just ask, and ask soon.

reply to post 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!"

I thought you had gone? Still, You have supplied nothing but your poorly constructed opinion and obvious denial.

Again you are supplying a sermon instead of discussing the evidence that is easily available

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

Your denial of evidence shows without doubt that you have a mind like a steel trap, snapped shut.

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.

You don’t show you know what science is to have been able to give it a chance. Your insults wont change that.

Long before I even thought of this, I gave people a chance. But to my dismay, they are low of morals, scruples, and overall conscience. I wanted to help, help people see what's out here, at no cost.

I see, another messiah and in this case a blind one.

Please tell me how your denial of evidence that a comet strike heralded the end of the Dinosaur helps anyone see what's out there?

I need a guarantee that you, as a fellow person and a fellow scientist, that you won't follow the world, and just hear a drop of what I know.

If all you have is your opinion and are bent on denying any and all evidence then you are not a scientist and have nothing to offer us poor sinners.

Hear what truth I've learned outside the box. Just ask, and ask soon.

The old outside the box nonsense that always comes from someone that has nothing of substance to say.

You have been shown your last revelation was based on nonsense and I doubt any other of your 'gifts' from outside of the box will be any different.