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: |
| 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 | Jul 20 2014, 05:56 PM Post #2266 |
![]() ![]()
|
Because who else should be a spitter? (A cobra?) |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jul 20 2014, 05:57 PM Post #2267 |
![]() ![]()
|
There are tons of prehistoric animals that were likely to be venomous that could be used instead of Dilophosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 20 2014, 06:48 PM Post #2268 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
Megalania for example |
![]() |
|
| Admantus | Jul 20 2014, 06:50 PM Post #2269 |
![]()
Ad Man
![]()
|
Megalania was probably already venomous. Now a venomous moasasaur. That would be cool. |
![]() |
|
| Nomis | Jul 20 2014, 07:02 PM Post #2270 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jul 20 2014, 07:08 PM Post #2271 |
![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 20 2014, 08:51 PM Post #2272 |
|
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 ![]()
that was the point
Edited by stargatedalek, Jul 20 2014, 08:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jul 20 2014, 08:52 PM Post #2273 |
![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 20 2014, 09:10 PM Post #2274 |
|
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... |
![]() |
|
| Kaleb | Jul 20 2014, 11:45 PM Post #2275 |
![]()
Zebrasorus is teh best evur11
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jul 20 2014, 11:55 PM Post #2276 |
![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 21 2014, 12:23 AM Post #2277 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| Kaleb | Jul 21 2014, 12:41 AM Post #2278 |
![]()
Zebrasorus is teh best evur11
![]()
|
Whoops! Forgot to add young earth. Sorry about that. |
![]() |
|
| trisdino | Jul 21 2014, 03:24 AM Post #2279 |
![]() ![]()
|
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" |
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 21 2014, 07:47 AM Post #2280 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| 4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups














