Dinosaurs Have Skyscrapers and Cellphones? Maybe.

Originally posted by colin42
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.

What about the war waged on every living thing?

and I simply show the door, it's up to people on wether they want to open it or not. Which it seems like you don't want to open it, but, hey, no skin off my nose.

It's kind of like, telling a blind person a color. They never saw it, and they don't know how it feels. Same situation, I tell a bit, and you can look for more or not.

In this situation, you want to know what's pass the door. I can't tell you, it's different for everyone.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

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

No one says you need to change your belief in a fraud like Cater. Cater is very clear that he makes things up. He begs the reader to overlook his need to make things up. You are free to believe in rubbish like Cater's work. All I did was point out Cater's work is based on Cater's imagination and those willing to believe in works based on fantasies.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

What about the war waged on every living thing?

and I simply show the door, it's up to people on wether they want to open it or not. Which it seems like you don't want to open it, but, hey, no skin off my nose.

It's kind of like, telling a blind person a color. They never saw it, and they don't know how it feels. Same situation, I tell a bit, and you can look for more or not.

In this situation, you want to know what's pass the door. I can't tell you, it's different for everyone.

This color and blind person metaphor is a commonly used bad metaphor.

There are deaf that have never heard a sound that can speak and speak quite well.

That and the rest of your commentary has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand which is your posting of clearly false statements.

In fact, you've never supported any of your claims all of which appear to be false.

The question here is about dinosaurs and their possible development of technology.

A large number of reasons have been given as to why they did not have technology. A few reasons for why nothing is seen have been offered such as it was all destroyed over time. Another reason is that it could have been of a form we do not recognize or that was made to disappear. On the other hand we note that jellyfish and some other soft lifeforms have been fossilized, that dinosaurs show no burial customs, buildings, medical alterations, tools, or technological products.

Is there anything else to add?

reply to post by stereologist

No one says you need to change your belief in a fraud like Cater. Cater is very clear that he makes things up. He begs the reader to overlook his need to make things up. You are free to believe in rubbish like Cater's work. All I did was point out Cater's work is based on Cater's imagination and those willing to believe in works based on fantasies.

Dodging, are we? I'm always careful on who I mock, and like I said before, if you haven't read his work, then you have no right to talk anything bad about what he talks about. And you said it, not me.

You don't like him, do you? He hits on everything you know and he even states that anything of the following six are in harmony with his book, the book is nullified.

1. The author fails to define his terms.
2. His presentation involves dimensions beyond the third
3. The article is in harmony with the dogmas of academic physics.
4. His treatise incorporates the Theory of Relativity.
5. He uses a lot of complex mathematics and diagrams.
6. He employs such meaningless terms as hyper-space, hyper-vectors, hyper-scalars, curvature of space-time, space-time, etc. of course this comes under the heading of (1) since such vagaries defy any proper definition.

You deny that there was such a things as the flood, you deny reality, and yet you live. Why is that?

I simply show the door, double-thinker, and it's up to others on whether they want to open it or not.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Dodging, are we? I'm always careful on who I mock, and like I said before, if you haven't read his work, then you have no right to talk anything bad about what he talks about. And you said it, not me.

You don't like him, do you? He hits on everything you know and he even states that anything of the following six are in harmony with his book, the book is nullified.

1. The author fails to define his terms.
2. His presentation involves dimensions beyond the third
3. The article is in harmony with the dogmas of academic physics.
4. His treatise incorporates the Theory of Relativity.
5. He uses a lot of complex mathematics and diagrams.
6. He employs such meaningless terms as hyper-space, hyper-vectors, hyper-scalars, curvature of space-time, space-time, etc. of course this comes under the heading of (1) since such vagaries defy any proper definition.

You deny that there was such a things as the flood, you deny reality, and yet you live. Why is that?

I simply show the door, double-thinker, and it's up to others on whether they want to open it or not.

You make no effort to support Cater. I simply pointed out that he makes it clear that he makes things up. I posted quotes from Cater himself showing that he stated quite clearly that he makes things up as he goes along. I really didn't need to read any more of Cater's gibberish. If I want to read fantasies I might as well go read one of the Shannara books.

What does anything you list have to do with anything at all?

There are lots of places where people use complex math. That does not mean it is appropriately used. I see it often used to feign cleverness or wow the reader.

There was no global flood. Never happened. There is zero evidence for such a flood. If there were any you could list it. While you're at it maybe you could also show some evidence for exodus. That never happened either. The bible is full of things that are demonstrably false.

So far you've provided no evidence at all for any of your wild claims. You've stated unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more.

reply to post by stereologist


two. Lemuria and Atlantis.

Part of the truth.

Two vast empires that were located one off the East and one off the West coast of the USA. Before, ocean level was 500 feet below. After, the empires are gone, and all of it's tech gone as well.

read the books, and you'll understand.

What he says is truth.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


You mention 2 nonexistent places. Lemuria was a hypothetical land bridge suggested as an explanation for the distribution for lemur fossils. Well after that the distribution was explained by the movement of land masses in plate tectonics. Lemuria was dropped along with most other land bridges.

Atlantis is a place mentioned by a single source. In a story by Plato there is mention of Atlantis. There is no other source. So far the only thing is the tale by Plato.

Two vast empires that were located one off the East and one off the West coast of the USA. Before, ocean level was 500 feet below. After, the empires are gone, and all of it's tech gone as well.

Lemuria was never an empire. It was a means of connecting two places with similar fossils. Atlantis is only what is mentioned by Plato.

Your link refers to a place that has been debunked. There are no pyramids a mile under the ocean. These scientists are not real. In fact this story is old and goes back over a decade. You've fallen for a rehashed hoax. When you read the wacko tale about the site your built in wack-o-meter, assuming everyone has one, should have gone off. The images are fake. Some are from the Atlantis resort. At a mile down it is pitch black.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
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.

You didn't answer my question or respond to anything I said. There's no reason to believe Cater. That's the bottom line. You have the opportunity here to explain his position, justify his claims, and show his evidence, but you are refusing to do it. That's not my problem.

Enough of the double standards. You get on people about not answering your questions, yet are guilty of ignoring any and everything that contradicts or debunks your claims. Conversations are supposed to work both ways. Don't demand people to explain themselves when you won't even offer the same courtesy.

If most of science is a hoax or "doesn't add up", what makes Cater's book the truth? I'm interested in where your standards of reality and evidence judgement lie. What has he demonstrated to convince you of the accuracy of his claims, opposed to the "mainstream science" way. You mentioned that you have tried the things he said and they worked. Please give an example.

And finally, what's with the obvious agenda against education and science? You do realize that without it, you wouldn't be able to use your PC or the internet or any modern technology. Computers work because they have been scientifically proven to work in the manner they do. Yes, science adds up. Of course when you are home schooled by religious fundamentalists, it doesn't add up because it was never taught to you in the proper capacity or context.

reply to post by WormwoodSquirm


Well, I do not know what you guys were talking about for 10 pages, but there is a very simple and logical way to destroy that neat theory.

We DO know enough about dinos, especially about their skulls, to definitively say that they weren´t as advanced as us.

Plus, long, long before you reach cell phones, you have civilization and all that comes with it. Homes, tools, jewelry or weapons would have been found in at least some of the well preserved dinos.

It just does not add up. Plus, where are the dino satellites that they must have used for their advanced civilization?

just to play dino advocate...
the vast amounts of time passing since the Silurians (or whatever we want to call these Saurio Sapiens) account for lack of evidence. only a tiny fraction of fossils are ever found, the rest still buried, or the bodies decayed without fossilization (which is what happens to most of us).
tech would presumably mean metal, and metal is notorious for poor keeping skills, esp when buried. I sometimes find coins ten years old and barely recognizable; would there be anything left of a million-year-old cell phone? and how long can a satellite orbit last?

not ADVOCATING dino civil, just positing an explanation for lack of evidence. I wonder about some antedeluvian civilization existence myself. every now and then a Piri Reis map or Ankerios (sp?) device pops up and makes me wonder.

reply to post by works4dhs


There have been 4 mummified dinosaurs found. Lots of bones have been found. Do we ever find a sign of surgery? Lots of dino nests have been found. Has anyone ever found evidence of fortification around the nest or foundations or anything to suggest that this is anything more than an open air nest? Have any dino graves been found? Has any dino been found with jewelry? There are all sorts of metals that will last a long time as there are materials that last a long time. Gold lasts. Ceramics and plastics last. Are there lots of dino tracks but they are all bare feet making the tracks.

Everything can last even skin imprints have lasted. Geosynchronous satellites can last in orbit a long time. Even jellyfish can be fossilized.