Information icon.svg The 2019 RMF board election has started!
We are electing 3 board members for the 2019-2021 term.
Vote here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Dinosaur

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Dinos and Man coexist - I has a picture ![edit]

A picture proves suggests illustrates that Men in robes and dinos did coexist and played ball at the local park. Here the pic Dino and Man Hamster 21:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Even further proof here. Corry 21:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm fun or rewrite?[edit]

This should either be moved to fun or completely rewritten. What say you? AceX-102 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Partial rewrite is fine. Missionality: documenting creationist reactions to dinosaurs being way cool and insanely popular with little kids - David Gerard (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This is classic RW material. Rewrite if necessary, but no moving to phunspace, that's silly. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaurs extinction![edit]

The dinosaurs became extinct because aliens ate them.I was one of them.

(LICKS LIPS)

they sure were tasty!--Thedoctor80 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember that! They were delicious! Especially if you put just the right type of Betelgeuse hot sauce on it......... --Onion Hi! :) 17:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hah, they just taste like chicken.  Lily Inspirate me. 19:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with [1]. Anna Livia (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Creationist beliefs[edit]

Creationists say that if a living dinosaur was discovered today, it would disprove evolution.This is not true because:

a.Dinosaurs were wiped out because of a freak cataclysmic event, not because,as some people believe, they were unsuccessful evolutionarily. b. If a living reptilian dinosaur were to be discovered, it would be a minority.However, if YEC were right, we would expect there to be lots of living dinosaurs. c. We have found dinosaurs alive today which have EVOLVED!!! [[2]]--Thedoctor80 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A living dinosaur would only disprove evolution if belonged to a known fossil genus. That is, eg, a Tyrannosaurus or a Triceratops. A living dinosaur which was placed in a new genus would be no more disproof of evolution than other cretaceous survivors. Like, say, ants. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, even in that case it wouldn't disprove evolution, only that that genus went extinct! Evolution can change things very rapidly, or it might not change things at all for millions of years - the Coelacanth being the obvious example where this hypothetical scenario has already happened (albeit at a higher level than "genus" which you stated). Scarlet A.pngpostate 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Creationists say that if a living dinosaur was discovered today, it would disprove evolution. I'm not sure they do say this - though knowing creationists I suppose some of them might. But some claim that there are living dinosaurs today.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
So they do, and not just creationists either. alt.history buffs like David Hatcher Childress also like the idea [3] Totnesmartin (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I like my Dawn Redwood and Ginkgo trees. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with dinosaurs[edit]

... humans are not responsible for their extinction. (Bad comet!)

The problem with Creationism - humans were responsible for dinosaur extinction, through being sinful enough to cause the Flood. (Bad humans!)

And if dinosaurs were around Creationists could get hunting licenses for them.

212.85.6.26 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

ROAR[edit]

ROAR Z-Rex (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Seperate article[edit]

I'm thinking of writing a seperate article called "Dinosaur and human coexistence bullshit." Should I or should I just leave the info on the belief in this article? -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 17:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

God's sense of humour[edit]

Would the The Zuiyō-Maru carcass be an example of this? 86.134.53.8 (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Crystal Palace Dinosaurs[edit]

These should be mentioned - bizarrely they are 'buildings.'

And would a link to [4] be appropriate? 86.134.53.8 (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-dinosaurs[edit]

Needs a section covering animals that are sometimes mistakenly thought to be dinosaurs: pterosaurs, plesiosaurs and the like. —Kazitor, pending 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'd add DimetrodonWikipedia's W.svg to that list. I was going to say, "more closely related to us than it was to dinosaurs", but that seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. Spud (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
How about "Distant cousins"? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I thin that's perfectly reasonable. No hyperbole there. Spud (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Brief section added (and 555 bytes too!) —Kazitor, pending 10:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Super! Spud (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)