|
Post by Tyrannax on Oct 16, 2008 2:49:06 GMT
lol, I don't think we've met piltdown, yet i've heard a lot about you...A lot
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 2:49:55 GMT
What insults? Who was I insulting? Did I call CT names? Did I post scarecrow pics every time he posted? Did I say his contributions were without value (unlike what YOU said to ME, sbell, eh? ) Ah, I get it, if you don't agree with something you read on a PUBLIC forum you find it insulting! Do you feel insulted if the sun doesn't shine everyday, or that the Tories won, or other things that have nothing personally to do with you?
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 2:54:49 GMT
lol, I don't think we've met piltdown, yet i've heard a lot about you... A lotDon't believe everything you hear about me, especially if it is said by a dinosaurologist
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Oct 16, 2008 3:07:40 GMT
I don't jump to conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Oct 16, 2008 4:16:58 GMT
But what of the never joining again claim? A different screen name doesn't change that. Trolls can't stay away. If they can't make trouble on a message board, who's gonna give them any attention?
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 4:21:24 GMT
Indeed, if you can't give any rational response, just call your opponent a 'troll' or a 'creationist'. Very typical paleontological logic.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 16, 2008 5:16:21 GMT
What insults? Who was I insulting? Did I call CT names? Did I post scarecrow pics every time he posted? Did I say his contributions were without value (unlike what YOU said to ME, sbell, eh? ) Ah, I get it, if you don't agree with something you read on a PUBLIC forum you find it insulting! Do you feel insulted if the sun doesn't shine everyday, or that the Tories won, or other things that have nothing personally to do with you? All right Pitly, let's breakdown your posts to see how they added value. And for the record, I am doing this as evidence that my claim was not invalid. If in doing this I find I overstepped myself, I will say so. Also, I apologize if this gets a little long, but I tend to defend myself. I will try to be concise: Don't believe anything--do research on biomechanical engineering and learn for yourself why they are saying these things--and how you can provide evidence to the contrary. WHAT UTTER NONSENSE. Do you mean to tell me that I have to be a meteorologist to talk about the weather, or a mathematician to believe 2 and 2 are 4? Is there not room for common sense in science? Or is it just a prerogative of scientists? Of course, some people in this forum appear to think one has to be a palaeontologist to talk about dinosaur toys! Typical palaeontological snobbery--though given archaeoraptor and t-rex proteins [sic] and now this "pterosaurs can't fly" nonsense I don't think palaeontologists have any right to be proud of their record, eh? My meaning here was simply that a ridiculous claim should be debated--and the more supported evidence we can all put against it (as well as common sense and logic) the better. However, at no point does your post actually refer to the issue of the thread; only to MY snobbery. And of course Archaeoraptor & T rex proteins. If I am guilty of anything, it's probably not explaining myself properly. {Continuation of previous post, criticism not directed at Blade of the Moon } And how do you know the researcher actually studied pterosaur flight mechanics? What he did was attach a speedometer to the wing of the albatross and concluded that anything larger couldn't fly! Where is his proof? Or do our paleontologists actually have a living pterosaur to actually check their theories against? And how about evolutionary theory? Why would a flightless pterosaur run around with his 30 foot wings? What else is a creature with a 30 + wingspan supposed to do with its wings? Isn't the ichnological (sp) evidence clear that pterosaurs walked on all fours clumsily on land? How then is a quetzalcoatlus supposed to be a secondarily flightless creature? How can it defend itself against a raptor pack or an enraged t-rex? I'll admit, I missed this one--probably because the first part was still a scientist bashing rant (directed at my post). The second part does bring up some points. Yup, that's all the 'scientist' did. But since we aren't biomechanical engineers sbell thinks we have no right to an opinion! That's exactly what I said. Or not, actually. More swipes at me, but I guess that's okay. But is it an informed opinion? Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean it's right. it would "make sense" for pterosaurs to tuck their heads back in flight, like modern long-necked birds such a pelicans and herons, yet the biomechanical evidence suggests otherwise. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid. Typical paleontological snobbery from the people who gave us archaeoraptor and t-rex proteins. Well, it was common sense that organic tissue wouldn't survive 65 million years unchanged. But it was the paleontologsits who gave their informed opinion that not only was it genuine t-rex blood vessels with proteins, but that they could even determine that it came from a pregnant female! And what was it? Bacterial sludge, as should have been expected by anyone who has handled food. Yes, not all opinions are equal. Cetibus paribus I'll take an opinion of a man on the street than a ' paleontologist's' anyday about dinosaurs. Another interesting philosophical debate (what defines a valid opinion?) but as it turns out, this post is still about science snobs and T rex proteins. And who prey tell is to judge what an 'informed' opinion is or not? Hmm? Only people with PhDs in the specialty? Modern science is just like the medieval papacy, except that the scholastics had finer minds Again with the debate on opinion validity, then a swipe at science overall--using the institution that brought us the Inquisitions, residential schools and the destruction of the Mayan writings (see what I did there--I brought up unrelated things that are negative, to put into a third party's mind the correlation, even though those things have no bearing whatsoever on the issues at hand. Neat, huh?). So the t-rex proteins and archaeoraptor are genuine after all? This is almost a troll--the last time this stuff came up, it turned very ugly. I think we all know how this stuff stands, and dredging it up again (for the third time in 6 posts) is just trying to put a blowtorch next to the propane tank. Snobbery occurs when one uses the word 'experience' to bash other people's opinions. Especially when the 'experience' is not particularly pertinent in the first place, like citing, say, crows, when talking about tyrannosaur behaviour. Back with the validity of opinions stuff--interesting, yet there follows a pretty targeted personal comment, against someone that was not involved in this thread at all, if I am not mistaken. I take it you don't go to the Doctor if you're ill. After all, these are the people who gave the world thalidomide, electro-shock therapy and lobotomies... Was I talking about medicine? I was referring to dinosaurologists If this is the way dinosaurologists think, I am hardly surprised they believe there are such things as flying dinosaurs and non-flying pterosaurs Here's where things get awkward--there was some snarkiness from one person, so of course that is to be expected. Then more paleontologist bashing. I'm personally offended every time the same thing is brought up--hence, my encouragement to ignore the reincarnation--again--of Archaeoraptor and T rex proteins. But that doesn't seem to matter, because I (and others) approach from the scientific side of things. We understand that these people that make errors are individuals; they do not speak for or represent the whole; in fact, their individual errors do not negate their other work (there is a name for that fallacy, but I can't remember it.) Nothing good ever appears to come of this discussion. It's just such an easy vortex to get sucked into. And because you're offended no one should bring up the subject? Or is it because archaeraptor and the t-rex protein fiasco are such indisputable refutations of the claim of dinosaurology to be a genuine science and not a lesser variety of philately? By the way, I use dinosaurology because from reading the papers of scientists in other disciplines who also are interested in the Earth's past, it is apparent that they are more ready to defend their hypotheses with actual evidence. Much unlike the dinosaurologists, who say, "I don't what these are, therefore they must be feathers!", which is a succinct paraphrase of the beipiaosaurus 'feathers' paper by Xu Xing et al. By scientific do you mean everybody who agrees with you is 'scientific' [sic], and everyone who disagrees is a scaly-dinosaur-loving-creationist? Tomhet and stoneage are right--dinosaurology is now more a branch of public relations than of scientific endeavour. This thread is a perfect example of that. More protein and Archaeoraptor stuff. More insults toward paleontologists. More round-about attacks on my character (I never made claims about the nature of those who disagree with me). And for the record, all sciences are as much PR as research these days--unless the LHC was continually popping up in the papers because there were intrepid reporters looking for scoops in the physics world. This is obviously piltdown, so now he's not only trolling, he's using a sock puppet. What do you have to do to get banned around here? Look who's talking. And how do you define 'trolling', someone who disagrees with your point of view? Is not harmonizing along with the 'birds are dinos' choir suddenly considered "irrational", "ungenial", or otherwise unacceptable behaviour? ONLY Dr A or tomhet can decide to ban me in any case, certainly not you. Now we're getting into that ugly territory. No one will come out happy from this stuff. Although that almost sounded like a challenge or a taunt, but I don't know why. I don't know why someone would say that my posts have no value, then express his being 'offended' when I do post If my posts were pointless, irrational, etc. then why should anyone be irked? Is it not rather because what I'm saying is true and irrefutable? Or is archaeoraptor now a genuine non-composite fossil? Or is that bacterial muck now a t-rex blood vessel? Or are those pterosaur wings for decorative purposes only? Or what is dilong -- an 'unquestionable' tyrannosaur in 2004, a coelurosaur in 2007, perhaps a toothy chicken in 2008, what? If I am wrong, answer me then! If not, best to keep silent, eh? I suppose the first part is answered above--I am irked that these discussions get pushed into weird, anti-science sentiments (sorry, anti-'dinosaurologist' sentiments) when the original thread had nothing to do with that at all. And again with Archaeoraptor. Go back to that thread (when you were Ziro, remember that?) and see where it lead. At least the Dilong thing is novel (for the record, tyrannosaurs ARE coelurosaurs; the latter is a larger group that encompasses the former, as well as other groups). God, every single person who tries to make sense of the past is a complete udder idiot! (and that was sarcasm) Indeed anyone who tries to make sense of the past using doubtful evidence, mistaken and unwarranted assumptions, illogic, and misleading conclusions is indeed a 'complete utter idiot', especially those who contact the media before actually studying the matter at hand, which applies to many dinosaurologists. (Other people who actually ' study the past' don't have the same media access, so the value of their work is ignored. And the non-dinosaurologists have the time to get the work right too, instead of working with a deadline imposed by a National Geographic.) And no I'm not being 'sarcastic' More scientist bashing (who are these other researchers of the ancient world anyway? There are probably several that would love some publicity). This is the last of the posts before the one at the top. I am sorry again for the analysis here, but I wanted to make my point--there was one comment appropriate to the thread, there were a few points relevant to the nature of opinions (not this thread's topic, but hey, conversations ebb and flow), and a lot of...other stuff, that we've heard elsewhere in various forms. And I'm willing to admit--there are posts I've made that could have probably been written in a more congenial way, but sometimes brevity or emotions get in the way. It is never my intention to try and hurt feelings or rile anyone up, but of course words are pretty powerful. And I also know that this post has the potential to kick off a firestorm--if I see that happen, I will delete it myself (but I will save it first). As for my feelings on this public forum--I quite enjoy this forum. That makes me want to see it as a happy place, and when someone comes in and disturbs that needlessly, it makes the place less happy. We are, after all, interested in toys based on prehistoric life and the science behind them. Sometimes we will disagree on the toys and on the science; at least I hope we will (it would get boring if everyone always agreed). But I personally feel that these threads get derailed when this other stuff comes up, and they don't need to be. More to the point, I find things insulting when comments are made about others needlessly, either as a profession or as a person. And I'm glad the Tories got a strong minority government. Keeps everyone honest. Also, the sun tends to shine a lot where I live, just like I tell it to .
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Oct 16, 2008 5:18:53 GMT
Welcome back Piltdown! ;D Boy did we miss yah!
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 5:20:17 GMT
To Sbell: You have rambled on for paragraphs, yet you never answered my question. Did or did not Mary Schweitzer announce her t-rex proteins to the press before she sent the samples to be studied by other labs, as is required? Did or did not Phil Currie and Xu Xing hold a press conference on Microraptor before they published a study? Did or did not Phil Manning write a book on edmontosaurus and make a DVD without publishing a single study--heck, while the specimen is still being prepared? I could go on and on with dilong, the non-flying pterosaurs, the silly quetzalcoatlus-giraffe theory, and so on. They are all unscientific and illogical. It is no wonder that of all the sciences only paleontology hasn't accepted the fact that the meteor or comet that struck Chicxulub caused the demise of ALL the dinosaurs (no dino-birds, please). What does evidence matter, when one can claim t-rexes all died of intestinal disorder, or mosquito bites, and write a book about it?
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 5:21:20 GMT
Hello boki Hope the dinos enjoy their new home
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Oct 16, 2008 5:27:29 GMT
Hello boki Hope the dinos enjoy their new home Have you seen the pictures I posted of them? They are doing very well and thanks again ;D Nice to have you back, make it more interesting ;D
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 5:28:59 GMT
Hello boki Hope the dinos enjoy their new home Have you seen the pictures I posted of them? They are doing very well and thanks again ;D Nice to have you back, make it more interesting ;D Thanks
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 16, 2008 5:37:56 GMT
To Sbell: You have rambled on for paragraphs, yet you never answered my question. Did or did not Mary Schweitzer announce her t-rex proteins to the press before she sent the samples to be studied by other labs, as is required? Did or did not Phil Currie and Xu Xing hold a press conference on Microraptor before they published a study? Did or did not Phil Manning write a book on edmontosaurus and make a DVD without publishing a single study--heck, while the specimen is still being prepared? I could go on and on with dilong, the non-flying pterosaurs, the silly quetzalcoatlus-giraffe theory, and so on. They are all unscientific and illogical. It is no wonder that of all the sciences only paleontology hasn't accepted the fact that the meteor or comet that struck Chicxulub caused the demise of ALL the dinosaurs (no dino-birds, please). What does evidence matter, when one can claim t-rexes all died of intestinal disorder, or mosquito bites, and write a book about it? I didn't see actual questions about those individual topics. And I acknowledge that many of those were presumptuous announcements. However, what about all of the other pre-publication announcements? Go to livescience.com. Most of those are announcements from all of the sciences, often with no more than a preliminary nature article. Why? Because these scientists in all disciplines have something that they think they should share. Sometimes it doesn't work out. Sometimes, they get way too ahead of themselves. Sometimes, the eventual research (which can take years) does not reflect the original press release. But that's the nature of things. And there are reasons that Chixulub is not considered the only K/T cause of death. There are little things, like no fossil dinos being found closer than 1m to the Iridium layer, and the apparent decline seen in the fossil record prior to the actual extinction. There are others, but what's the point? You believe what you will. Anyway, it's pretty silly that someone wrote an article about how big pterosaurs couldn't fly. Crazy stuff. Especially considering that the original Sato research paper didn't even mention pterosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 5:42:22 GMT
"You believe what you will" certainly applies far more to the dinosaur-bird paleos I've read some of those papers, and I know how bad they are. Yet that doesn't stop dinosaurologists from creating whole cladistic trees with nodes and nests and crowns and all that cladistic nonsense
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 16, 2008 6:06:45 GMT
"You believe what you will" certainly applies far more to the dinosaur-bird paleos I've read some of those papers, and I know how bad they are. Yet that doesn't stop dinosaurologists from creating whole cladistic trees with nodes and nests and crowns and all that cladistic nonsense Alvin, I was referring to the K/T extinction stuff, although yes, I suppose you believe what you will about feathered dinos too. I can't believe I keep getting sucked into this.
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Oct 16, 2008 18:57:40 GMT
Ok Piltdown, here's the problem I have with you. Everytime you come in here, you always beat the already bloodied horse on how Archaeoraptor and the t.rex soft tissue are nonsense and how those two incidents can somehow discredit the stack of evidence supporting the dinosaur-bird hypothesis. It's true, Archaeoraptor was clearly a fabrication and, while the rex tissue is looking pretty debunked these days, I believe it to be honest scientific trial and error. The media always plays a large part in blowing scientific evidence out of proportion, so I do not believe the scientists are entirely to blame here.
Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that this is ALL you ever say, but if you expect to come in here tauting your scaly maniraptor nonsense, I expect YOU to provide an alternative approach to the evolution of birds. No, I defy you to. So answer me this if your opinion on the matter is so high and mighty: If birds did not diverge from dinosaurs in the Jurassic, then when and what other line would you suggest? Also, I want to see you discredit pieces of evidence such as feather impressions on Chinese specimens, velociraptor quill knobs, and Archeaopteryx, among others, and with something much more substantial than "I read the papers but it's all a hoax because the feathers are all PAINTED on!"
This is your obligation to me, do you understand? I don't want to see you reply to this with anything other than what I've just asked you. You spend your time calling people here "dinosaurologists" who seem to have no clue, when you seem to fancy yourself one in your own right, scrutinizing the work of others. It's time to defend your position.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 23:26:29 GMT
Ok Piltdown, here's the problem I have with you. Everytime you come in here, you always beat the already bloodied horse on how Archaeoraptor and the t.rex soft tissue are nonsense and how those two incidents can somehow discredit the stack of evidence supporting the dinosaur-bird hypothesis. It's true, Archaeoraptor was clearly a fabrication and, while the rex tissue is looking pretty debunked these days, I believe it to be honest scientific trial and error. The media always plays a large part in blowing scientific evidence out of proportion, so I do not believe the scientists are entirely to blame here. Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that this is ALL you ever say, but if you expect to come in here tauting your scaly maniraptor nonsense, I expect YOU to provide an alternative approach to the evolution of birds. No, I defy you to. So answer me this if your opinion on the matter is so high and mighty: If birds did not diverge from dinosaurs in the Jurassic, then when and what other line would you suggest? Also, I want to see you discredit pieces of evidence such as feather impressions on Chinese specimens, velociraptor quill knobs, and Archeaopteryx, among others, and with something much more substantial than "I read the papers but it's all a hoax because the feathers are all PAINTED on!" This is your obligation to me, do you understand? I don't want to see you reply to this with anything other than what I've just asked you. You spend your time calling people here "dinosaurologists" who seem to have no clue, when you seem to fancy yourself one in your own right, scrutinizing the work of others. It's time to defend your position. Who the hell do you think you f_____ are telling me what or what not to do or say? Your defiance means nothing to me. What obligation do I have to you? Do we have a contract? What I choose to reply is my business not yours. If you so dislike my posts THEN DON"T READ THEM. Only Dr A or tomhet can tell me what or what not to say.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 23:28:00 GMT
Who said I was bashing archaeopteryx? Did it come from Liaoning? I always thought it was German! Apparently mr itstwentysomething it's you whose geography is somehow dubious!
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 16, 2008 23:36:48 GMT
If I can do my own research so can you. Your indolence is not my problem.
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Oct 16, 2008 23:43:11 GMT
I think I've made my point here. Your inability to answer any of my questions brings it all home. Now stop acting like a child.
|
|