Talk:Human–dinosaur coexistence

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Denialists vs. Believers

Can you actually document the two camps, preferably without quoting CP? Not to pick on you, but in general, I think we're often guilty of saying: Ask a creationist, and they might say "X", where "X" is something our favorite imagined creationist or Ken

, who should not be quoted for any good reason. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 23:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I recall Hovind's "Jackson Chameleon" as an example, i'll give it a whirl. Ty^{Bother me} 23:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a whole group of facebook creationists who are devoted to proving this. They say "dragon" is the same as "dinasour." I'll see if i can find some of their "juicy" links. I know they have some rock art they claim proves dinos lived with humans. Gotta find my sock on Facebook that is in teh groups, though. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 00:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at this shit. Dinosaurs are Satan's creation! Ty^{Bother me} 00:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The more science finds out, the more amusing the extreme "the bible is literal truth"ers become. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 00:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but I've always been of the opinion that the only thing needed to debunk Biblical literalism is the Bible itself. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that too. Those backward bends are reallllyyy fucking fun. YOu should watch two people who are not educated in Ancient Hebrew (which is decidedly different enough from modern Hebrew such that we don't ACTUALLY know how it all works yet) discuss why there were "6 day", or "6 eons" or "6 days, but days must mean 24 hours". Or watch pro-gay bibleists try to explain how the anti-gay references were to SLAVERY and sexual abuse. or watch others explain that "he didn't kill 40 innocent children, it meant young adult men". umhum.... :-) god, i trolled facebook's creationst pages for almost a year, and the things they say to get their poor bible to actually make some kind of sense in 20th century USA. heh. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack Chick's take on human-dinosaur coexistence. As usual with Chick, it's a childish fantasy with some tenuous biblical references but otherwise just made-up shit. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me taking that "denialist" line out because frankly it smells of agricultural by-product bloke. ^bomination 13:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Arguments against H-D C

No hunting licences have been issued. QED. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

^pathetic 15:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd show you mine, but season is closed currently. Тy^talk 17:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor are there 'Save the Dinosaurs' campaigns (backed by millions of small children, who contribute (small change) to said causes (and large sums to 'exploitative toy makers')), and 'expensive exotic dinosaur skin clothing' (and multimillion faux-dinosaur-leather counterfeiting industries). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Reptiles

The text says that dinosaurs were reptiles. I believe this to be incorrect. For instance at least some of them seem to have been warm-blooded. Not a well-known reptile trait.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia files them as "reptiles", and there's enough dinosaur obsessives there it wouldn't stand if it wasn't roughly acceptable. OTOH, birds are "dinosaurs" now but no-one admits them to "reptiles". The actual problem is that "reptile" is not a proper clade. tl;dr this may not be a useful place to make a great stand on the subject - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article points out the many differences between "reptiles" and dinosaurs while maintaining they were "reptiles". Wikipedia goes the same route saying: "Instead, they represent a separate group of reptiles which, like many extinct forms, did not exhibit characteristics traditionally seen as reptilian, such as a sprawling limb posture or ectothermy."

It seems to me that historically people thought they were reptiles and - although many non-reptilian traits continue to be identified - the traditional idea that dinosaur = reptile continues to hold sway. Birds would have needed to do a hell of a lot more evolving if dinosaurs really were reptiles. My personal idea would be to remove references to reptiles altogether as it adds nothing to the article. But I'm not that bothered.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wait till they find a feathered T-Rex, hoo boy - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, platypi lay eggs and sweat milk, rather than having a placenta and distinct breasts. Our need to categorize nature does not actually reflect nature.-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 22:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and dinosaurs fall particularly badly into the category "reptiles". Incidentally, the WP article has T Rex as clearly warm blooded. But that took me to the WP article on | Physiology of dinosaurs which shows how controversial the question is. I'm even more inclined to suggest that we remove the definite unambiguous statement "dinosaurs were reptiles" from the article and replace it with something more nuanced.--Weirdstuff (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I did add "well, maybe". Insofar as "reptiles" is a class, they're classed there (unless they're birds, tralala). The problem is it's not a proper clade, so sucks as a class - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - actually I missed the "well maybe" and just looked for a response on the talk page. But I think the article is now better without an unneeded and arguably dubious categorical statement.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Crystal Palace Dinosaurs

Do these beasts deserve an honourable mention (or at least a relevant external link)? Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Not for nothing are they known in these parts as the Wrongosaurs… Mr Larrington (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

here is an image. Anna Livia (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Coexistence proof

Here. Anna Livia (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, birds are dinosaurs, and humans do co-exist with birds... Vee (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

But these are 'dinosaur dinosaurs'. (Note that the model i rated 'difficult' - and other models for construction are available.) Anna Livia (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Honest question: would the Flintstones also count as proof of human-dinosaur coexistence by this logic? Vee (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand that The Flintstones contained an element of satire.

Subjects should be treated with the seriousness they deserve. Anna Livia (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)