|
Post by stoneage on Oct 22, 2008 21:36:00 GMT
"Do you think we can learn about Brontosaurus from a Duck?" If that is in reference to me bringing up bird behavior, and what birds are capable of, and how much we are beginning to understand birds, when in the past they were perceived to be "stupid" animals, when compared to dinosaur behavior, I would have to say, indeed, we can attempt to understand how dinosaurs behaved by making composites (I know ol pilty loves that word, composite) of the behavior of modern animals with similar niches/relations to dinosaurs. Of course all vertebrates are related.Crocodilians, chelonians, modern squamates and aves are all good groups to draw from, as they are (even if you choose to ignore all the evidence, and do not "believe" modern aves are indeed dinosaurs, that would still make the birds highly derived group of reptiles) the closest things to the extinct dinosaurs we have today. "look forward to Piltdown proving the 'blobby dinos' are real. good luck with that." Its nearly halloween - Personally, I bet he is armed with more scarecrows, like he was last time he refused to back his "argument" with anything valid. ;D In movies that are considered true stories, they have composite characters. These composite characters are made up of characteristics of 2 or more people. These composite characters are not real people they are fake. I'm sure you are an expert on bird behaviour. Dinosaurs are not birds. They do share some of the same features and are probably related in some way but they also have more differences. Just because I may be related to an early mammal doesn't mean I am like a rat. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 22, 2008 21:49:18 GMT
are they referring to something like this?? I found that article sort of... lame, I mean it looks like the paleontologists were trying to do a joke because they did not sound serious Ha Ha! Ja-Ru uintathere got served!
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 22, 2008 22:05:44 GMT
And I did say that I would like the finds verified too. I thought it was a good idea, and still do, but unlike the dino bird people I won't insist if an ichnologist proves it fake. Unlike the dino bird people I don't tolerate fakery just to bolster my claims. No, you just reply ad nauseum without saying anything new--we all know how you feel about evidence, specifically that you will believe it when you see it support your preconceived notions.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 22, 2008 22:10:06 GMT
And I did say that I would like the finds verified too. I thought it was a good idea, and still do, but unlike the dino bird people I won't insist if an ichnologist proves it fake. Unlike the dino bird people I don't tolerate fakery just to bolster my claims. No, you just reply ad nauseum without saying anything new--we all know how you feel about evidence, specifically that you will believe it when you see it support your preconceived notions. I'm not say anything new?--you are the ones who can't answer a simple question aboiut why media attention is more important to paleontologists than actual monographs. Stop misinterpreting my statements. You can try to do that with laymen, but you don't fool me.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 22, 2008 22:11:40 GMT
ROFL at preconceived notions. Who are the ones who will believe anything that comes from a Liaoning farmer's mouth when it comes to feathered 'dinosaurs'?
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 22, 2008 22:15:51 GMT
Who are the ones who don't actually read the paper about fuzzy dinos, then come out saying that I don't know anything about science? Hmm? If you've actually read the beipiaosaurus paper or microraptor paper or the velociraptor 'quill knob" paper anyone with half a brain would know that they are junk science. But since they fall into YOUR preconceived notions of how dinosaurs are like they get a free pass.
Hypocrites.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 22, 2008 22:16:28 GMT
No, you just reply ad nauseum without saying anything new--we all know how you feel about evidence, specifically that you will believe it when you see it support your preconceived notions.[/quote] ;D It is spelled ad nauseam. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 22, 2008 22:20:23 GMT
No, you just reply ad nauseum without saying anything new--we all know how you feel about evidence, specifically that you will believe it when you see it support your preconceived notions. ;D It is spelled ad nauseam. ;D [/quote] I am so confused--you spelled it the same as I did...unless you mean the italics, which I just think makes Latin look nice.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 22, 2008 22:26:44 GMT
;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 22, 2008 22:27:00 GMT
;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 22, 2008 22:28:16 GMT
No, you just reply ad nauseum without saying anything new--we all know how you feel about evidence, specifically that you will believe it when you see it support your preconceived notions. ;D It is spelled ad nauseam. ;D I am so confused--you spelled it the same as I did...unless you mean the italics, which I just think makes Latin look nice.[/quote] ;D No you spelled it nauseum like museum and it is actually seam. There are actually 2 different letters in there. No big deal everyone gets confused now and then especially with this word. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 22, 2008 22:38:17 GMT
;D It is spelled ad nauseam. ;D I am so confused--you spelled it the same as I did...unless you mean the italics, which I just think makes Latin look nice. ;D No you spelled it nauseum like museum and it is actually seam. There are actually 2 different letters in there. No big deal everyone gets confused now and then especially with this word. ;D[/quote] Man, it has been a long day. That should have been obvious.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 22, 2008 23:10:57 GMT
Who are the ones who don't actually read the paper about fuzzy dinos, then come out saying that I don't know anything about science? Hmm? If you've actually read the beipiaosaurus paper or microraptor paper or the velociraptor 'quill knob" paper anyone with half a brain would know that they are junk science. But since they fall into YOUR preconceived notions of how dinosaurs are like they get a free pass. Hypocrites. I am fully willing to take that hypocrite mantle, because I do not have time to read every article out there. HOWEVER, you are not providing one thing that could make a lot of this easier (well, two--what's with two or more posted replies to the same post?)--what is your positive evidence (i.e. it is not sufficient to deny a competing conclusion, but instead necessary to provide evidence for your own independently) that there is something wrong with the feather stuff? SEM work is quite supportive that the fossil feathers are similar in structure and texture to Archaeopteryx fossil feathers as well as bird feather fossils. In other words, no evidence of anthropogenic trace fossils. And again, why is it that Chinese farmers are suspect? Other than because they are Chinese of course. And somewhere in there, you mentioned fooling a layman, but not yourself. Not to be contentious or pedantic, but given the definition of layman: The term "layman" originated from the use of the term laity, but over the centuries, changed definition to mean a person who is a non-expert in a given field of knowledge. (from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layperson) are you claiming expert status? On what basis? I would not claim such a thing, in fact, I don't think anyone on this board is closely enough involved in this particular field of study to refer to themselves as an expert. You, however, are implying that you would. Therefore, please provide evidence of some sort that you are an expert. And I am not implying that you must be university educated, far from it. There are other ways to become an expert in a field. Alternatively, perhaps you chose the word 'layman' over a different, possibly more appropriate term, in which case, never mind.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 22, 2008 23:30:56 GMT
Stop hurling the insinuation that I am racist against Chinese. FYI, I am half-Chinese myself And since you won't believe that the 'protofuzz'--they are not even feathers!-- are just decayed collagen--or that archaeoraptor is 'anthropogenic' (trying to bamboozle people with pseudo-Latinate terms, very cheap scientific tactics) then there's nothing I can do.
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 22, 2008 23:33:00 GMT
And who ever said I was doubting archaeopteryx? YOU are the one creating straw men to demolish! Why doesn't crazycrowman post scarecrow pics when you post?
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 22, 2008 23:39:07 GMT
Oh, and I was using layman in a new sense to describe people who merely accept everything dinosaurologists say without reading the papers they write. Unfortunately in English there is no such term yet for "people who believe everything a dino bird paleontologist says in the media or in forums about dino birds even when it is false." Like people who believe the nonsense Paul Sereno spouted in his recent Aerosteon paper and the attendant media frenzy about birdlike dinosaurs [sic].
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 22, 2008 23:39:18 GMT
Double posting, you should be burned at the stake! Rofl J/K ;D This is obviously...fake. At least someone else here is seeing through the lies. This new 'discovery' just happens to be in America, one of the most populated countries in the world with a huge budget, the largest in the world for palaeontology, and a 200-year history of expeditions. And suddenly they find rare drag marks in a state where hoaxes have been demonstrated, are common, and are sold on Ebay. Why America? Why now!? big coincidence You can all believe in 'blobby dinos' if you like - I will reserve judgement till some actual evidence comes in... That made my year ;D
|
|
|
Post by bustosdomecq on Oct 22, 2008 23:43:47 GMT
I just like poking holes in the idea that an idea with a bunch of followers, or people that agree, somehow lends support to an argument. Well, the more people that believe something, the more convincing the EVIDENCE must be. right? And you of all people must put special weight on evidence. [I'm giving myself a headache ] Seems like someone is trying to be sarcastic about evidence. What pray tell is so wrong with evidence? Unlike dino bird paleos, whose papers are chock full with inferences, assumptions, "maybes', 'perhaps', etc. that suddenly harden into fact when talking to the media and writing books for the common reader?
|
|
|
Post by b33 on Oct 22, 2008 23:50:44 GMT
Why were these drag marks suddenly and mysteriously discovered in 2008! - why did nobody find these before - anywhere in the world!? hoax anyone? Sounds a lot like those ridiculous feathered dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by b33 on Oct 22, 2008 23:54:35 GMT
So verification of facts isn't high on your list of priorities after all? It's probably just a conpiracy by Invicta to relaunch their old figures. ;D I think we're all aware by now that fact verification is all he cares about--as long as it verifies the facts that he has decided are correct. It's curious that something hits the media, and he immediately seizes it as truth. Yet he only recently discussed about how we can't trust what dinosaurologists rush to the media. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
|
|