Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 20 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Dinos and Man coexist - I has a picture !

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?

This should either be moved to fun or completely rewritten. What say you? Ace^X-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. ħuman 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaurs extinction!

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

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). ^moral 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.--Bob^{Spring 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. ħuman 04:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with dinosaurs

... 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

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

Seperate article

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 (Annoy me!) 17:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)