Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!
Make a forum zoo!

Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you.
Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,349 Views)
trisdino
Member Avatar


Because who else should be a spitter?
(A cobra?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


There are tons of prehistoric animals that were likely to be venomous that could be used instead of Dilophosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

Megalania for example
plus its cooler
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admantus
Member Avatar
Ad Man

Megalania was probably already venomous.

Now a venomous moasasaur. That would be cool.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nomis
Member Avatar
the Mountain Born

Imagine Dennis Nedry trying to run away from a giant lizard, if that happened I would rewatch the movie so many times.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


When dinosaur-debunking creationists bring up things that have little to do with whether or not dinosaurs existed, such as petroleum origin or the limits of radiometric dating. Just because petroleum is a "fossil fuel" doesn't mean it has anything to do with dinosaurs, and just because radiometric dating helps us to determine the age of fossils doesn't mean it has any relevance to the existence of dinosaurs either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

I've had them claim that because the big bang can not be proven that evolution must be fake >_<

Quote:
 
Megalania was probably already venomous.

that was the point ;)
Edited by stargatedalek, Jul 20 2014, 08:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Speaking of which, evolution has little to do with the existence of dinosaurs either. At least no more to do with their existence than with the existence of any other living thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

I have to at the very least "admire the vague plausibility" of a old earth/scientology creation thesis
but young earth is just, yeesh...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kaleb
Member Avatar
Zebrasorus is teh best evur11

CyborgIguana
Jul 20 2014, 08:52 PM
Speaking of which, evolution has little to do with the existence of dinosaurs either. At least no more to do with their existence than with the existence of any other living thing.
It has to do with evolution because of the millions/billions of years problem for creationists. So for a young earth to be true, dinosaurs would either have to not have existed at all (which would be stupid to think.), or to have to exist much more recently than millions of years ago. It has to do with when the dinosaurs existed not if they existed.

BTW I am a creationist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


People thinking dinos literally had bones made of rocks. Also, nobody better use this statement to go on a creationist rant because I've seen plenty of other people who think the same thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

Kaleb
Jul 20 2014, 11:45 PM
CyborgIguana
Jul 20 2014, 08:52 PM
Speaking of which, evolution has little to do with the existence of dinosaurs either. At least no more to do with their existence than with the existence of any other living thing.
It has to do with evolution because of the millions/billions of years problem for creationists. So for a young earth to be true, dinosaurs would either have to not have existed at all (which would be stupid to think.), or to have to exist much more recently than millions of years ago. It has to do with when the dinosaurs existed not if they existed.

BTW I am a creationist.
Now who is generalizing creationists....

there is no problem with the old earth thesis, it in no way refutes creationism
nor does evolution for that matter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kaleb
Member Avatar
Zebrasorus is teh best evur11

Whoops! Forgot to add young earth. Sorry about that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trisdino
Member Avatar


One thing I have recently noticed is that the topics title is wrong. Creationists ineptitude ha nothing to do with palaeontology itself, in fact, considering what is being brought up, a more correct title would be "things that annoy you about the public's perception of palaeontology"


Anyway, every time a creationist tries to explain that the noahs ark is fully feasible, because they just take babies of every "kind". Not only would this imply incredibly rapid evolution, for a baby cat to become lions, tigers, cheetas, pumas, but it is also still wrong. Even if we only took 1 egg/baby for every 20 species, and had all the liveborn young put to sleep, they would still fill far more then the ark. These people do not seem to be able to do the math of "todays life x 99"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

this whole "micro evolution" thing is just crazy
to me it really feels like "we can't disprove this entirely, so lets accept this tiny part of it"
and every person I talk to gives me a different definition of this "micro evolution" nonsense

evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, there is no reason not to accept both

even more annoying, is when people try and use cryptid animals to "prove humans coexisted with dinosaurs"
its just stupid, there is no loch Ness monster, no ogopogo, no mokele mbembe, and no kasai rex, no dinosaur living at any point with humans
Edited by stargatedalek, Jul 21 2014, 09:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply