Ark: The Dinosaur Game we have been waiting for?

[RancidLunchmeat]

Wait. Dinosaurs had feathers?? Since when??

Sure, you didn't know that? Oh yeah, T-Rex wasn't a predator, either. See.. because... well.. we don't want awesome things in this world anymore, even memories of dead awesome things. When challenged, they backtracked to "scavenger" which may kill on their own or also eat things other animals have killed.

Well, no shit. If a bunch of velociraptors killed something and a T-rex shows up and chases them off and eats their meal instead of them, that makes T-Rex a scavenger, see? And scavengers are creatures to be scorned, not admired.

You just wait. In another 10 years, they'll be telling us that Great White sharks are scavengers and not predators because they sometimes eat other animal's kills. They'll also tell us they have feathers and like to hold cocktail parties where they serve white wine and organic, locally sourced nuts and berries.

By the way.. Dinosaurs don't just have feathers.. they have BEAUTIFUL peacock multi-colored feathers.

 

[deathindustrial]

Definitely was not expecting to encounter dinosaur angst! You from Drumheller or something?

=)

 

[NRP]

It doesn't bother me. Something as big as a T-Rex could almost certainly kill anything it wanted to, if it could catch it. It only makes sense for the larger animal to steal the kill from smaller animals. Happens all the time in nature, even today.

That said, I hope someone recreates a big dinosaur from DNA like in Jurassic Park. How f-ing cool would it be to see a live dinosaur?

 

[Cyan]

Sure, you didn't know that? Oh yeah, T-Rex wasn't a predator, either. See.. because... well.. we don't want awesome things in this world anymore, even memories of dead awesome things. When challenged, they backtracked to "scavenger" which may kill on their own or also eat things other animals have killed.

Well, no shit. If a bunch of velociraptors killed something and a T-rex shows up and chases them off and eats their meal instead of them, that makes T-Rex a scavenger, see? And scavengers are creatures to be scorned, not admired.

You just wait. In another 10 years, they'll be telling us that Great White sharks are scavengers and not predators because they sometimes eat other animal's kills. They'll also tell us they have feathers and like to hold cocktail parties where they serve white wine and organic, locally sourced nuts and berries.

By the way.. Dinosaurs don't just have feathers.. they have BEAUTIFUL peacock multi-colored feathers.

You gotta believe. It'd be cool if your ancestors had feathers, actually.

This video about the biggest shark ever recorded to date went viral yesterday -dunno what's the original video, but this is one of the copies of the original-. The shark was recorded these days. We don't know what's out there.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You gotta believe. It'd be cool if your ancestors had feathers, actually.

Most vertebrates are descended from birds so they likely did!

 

[Cyan]

Most vertebrates are descended from birds so they likely did!

You see, that's where life is a mystery. I mean, I don't think the theory of evolution is the actual truth and the response to everything. First of all.. Are we soul? Are we matter? Are we a fruit of chance?

We are very limited, we don't have enough intelligence and something is playing with us. I mean.. there is an order, everything is calculated at a giant scale. There is a star, planets rotate around it. There is night, and day. Sun and rain make the grass grow. Herbivores eat grass, carnivores eat those herbivores. It's too calculated. There is a balance, an almost perfect one, and only one species, humans, can alter that balance.

But that something limits us, we think there are many mysteries of life. That's why Gods and Goddesses were created by the greek for instance, in the first place. To find an explanation to everything that was beyond us.

We come from the sea, some fumes down there could be the first sing of life in the planet, kilometres below the sea surface (I've seen that in a documentary about sperm whales)

My theory is that the dinosaurs disappeared because while the earth was young it could feed some of the biggest creatures ever, when the earth came of age, they disappeared, and it began to feed smaller organisms.

 

[pjbliverpool]

First of all.. Are we soul?

The term "soul" needs a more specific definition before an answer can be given

Are we matter?

Within the context of the universe in which we live... most definitely yes. Is the universe itself "matter" as we understand it though, or just a data structure? And is there even a difference when we think about it on that scale?

Are we a fruit of chance?

If the multiverse theory is correct (and I like to believe that it is), we are both the fruit of chance, and an inevitability.

We are very limited, we don't have enough intelligence and something is playing with us. I mean.. there is an order, everything is calculated at a giant scale. There is a star, planets rotate around it. There is night, and day. Sun and rain make the grass grow. Herbivores eat grass, carnivores eat those herbivores. It's too calculated.

There are IMO 3 ways to explain this: 1. The anthropic principle (the universe seems perfectly balanced to our needs because only a species that is perfectly balanced for the universe can evolve in such a universe, hence no coincidence/chance involved). 2. The multiverse theory in combination with the anthropic principle. This would mean that our universe with it's particular set of physical constants was inevitable and thus so were we. 3. A God. This is the most short sighted of the possibilities IMO. It's an easy way out of the problem to assume "some intelligent being that we can't see must have done it" and it ignores the new question which that assumption gives rise to which is of course: "what created the God that created the Universe"? It's a tough thing to comprehend that there is something (the universe, the multiverse, a God etc...) which encompasses everything that exists but which was itself not born of something else. That's why I support the multiverse theory (more a philosophy than scientific theory) - because the way I see it the most logical explanation is that either nothing exists or everything exists (literally everything that is possible under every possible set of physical constants) and since we know the first option is incorrect by virtue of the fact that we can ponder upon it, the second option must be true. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. For there to be a reality that exists which is everything that there is but is only a subset of everything that there could be makes no sense to me. It makes more sense (to me) to assume that everything exists (and always has in terms of the thing we understand as time) and that we exist in this particular reality due to the anthropic principle.

There is a balance, an almost perfect one, and only one species, humans, can alter that balance.

That's not true, many specifies have an effect on their environment, just none on Earth do it on the same scale as us. And odds are their are alien species out there that do it on a far greater scale than we do.

My theory is that the dinosaurs disappeared because while the earth was young it could feed some of the biggest creatures ever, when the earth came of age, they disappeared, and it began to feed smaller organisms.

No it was an asteroid impact in Mexico (which almost brings us back on topic ;-))

 

[Arwin]

Not to mention that you should probably watch some videos like 'life before dinosaurs' to see how unstable Earth has been regardless of what species lived on it, and also that algae and plants may have had a bigger impact than humans might ever have.

 

[Cyan]

The term "soul" needs a more specific definition before an answer can be given



Within the context of the universe in which we live... most definitely yes. Is the universe itself "matter" as we understand it though, or just a data structure? And is there even a difference when we think about it on that scale?



If the multiverse theory is correct (and I like to believe that it is), we are both the fruit of chance, and an inevitability.



There are IMO 3 ways to explain this: 1. The anthropic principle (the universe seems perfectly balanced to our needs because only a species that is perfectly balanced for the universe can evolve in such a universe, hence no coincidence/chance involved). 2. The multiverse theory in combination with the anthropic principle. This would mean that our universe with it's particular set of physical constants was inevitable and thus so were we. 3. A God. This is the most short sighted of the possibilities IMO. It's an easy way out of the problem to assume "some intelligent being that we can't see must have done it" and it ignores the new question which that assumption gives rise to which is of course: "what created the God that created the Universe"? It's a tough thing to comprehend that there is something (the universe, the multiverse, a God etc...) which encompasses everything that exists but which was itself not born of something else. That's why I support the multiverse theory (more a philosophy than scientific theory) - because the way I see it the most logical explanation is that either nothing exists or everything exists (literally everything that is possible under every possible set of physical constants) and since we know the first option is incorrect by virtue of the fact that we can ponder upon it, the second option must be true. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. For there to be a reality that exists which is everything that there is but is only a subset of everything that there could be makes no sense to me. It makes more sense (to me) to assume that everything exists (and always has in terms of the thing we understand as time) and that we exist in this particular reality due to the anthropic principle.



That's not true, many specifies have an effect on their environment, just none on Earth do it on the same scale as us. And odds are their are alien species out there that do it on a far greater scale than we do.



No it was an asteroid impact in Mexico (which almost brings us back on topic ;-))

Some interesting stuff in there... I always went with the theory that it has to be some kind of god that thought it up and conceived it all, as if he was playing a RTS game, he moves units around, and has a lot of work all the time.

The meteor impact theory has been recently debunked. I think we will never know what actually happened or if the dinosaurs were actually wiped out 65 million years ago or it was a different cause.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dinosaur-k...torms-mass-extinction-theory-debunked-1484681

That theory has stood up remarkably well, because it makes sense to a certain extent. But there is something about that theory that doesn't click with me. If the meteorite killed the dinosaurs, why should it kill the marine dinosaurs? The dinosaur sea creatures should be able to live afterwards even if resources on the surface were wasted.

 

[Arwin]

A lot of sea life also depends on sun, especially at the top of the food chain. Likely some species became weak enough as a result and scarcity may have led to a species 'war'. The shark and its ancestors for instance has been around for much longer than dinosaurs, as have arachnids (starting as scorpion like marine creatures). But smaller dinos according to current theories have actually survived and evolved (further) to birds. That theory still holds afaik.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Can we move the Theory of Life and Everything discussion to the general discussion forums, please?