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 (256,348 Views)
Nomis
Member Avatar
the Mountain Born

Please stop arguing, here I will change the topic. Does anyone remember those carvings that looked like dinosaurs. Those archaeologists decided to continue their theory into this abomination.


Posted Image


Not only the dinosaurs are inaccurate it is where they are and when they are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

I seriously hope you are kidding
Dinotopia may be dated but its hardly young earth jargon
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nomis
Member Avatar
the Mountain Born

I found it while researching this.
It must have been reused, sorry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

they get reused pretty often
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinotopia#Background
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


trisdino
Jul 21 2014, 03:24 AM
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"
I'm not sure I understand you. You're the only one who's wrong here, if anything. How can the topic possibly be incorrect? The point of this topic is to "Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you." I suppose Creationist theories could go under moronic theories, if that's how you perceive them, but don't be so conceded. The topic isn't here just so you can rant about how much you hate creationists. it's here so you can talk about what annoys you about actual paleontology. Why can't someone go on a rant about an actual dinosaur for once? Trisdino, if you want to make your own thread specifically for dissing Creationism, by all means go ahead. It's just that every time I see you post somewhere, a massive fight always breaks out and I'm through with it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trisdino
Member Avatar


All I am saying is that everybody is just talking about creationists and pop culture anyway. I have not heard a single person say "I hate how sketchy the fossil record is" or "the fact that nobody can agree on whether or not x dinosaur had x traits".

It is all just "Damn those creationists" or "The public is so dumb". I do not mind this, but it is hardly relevant to the title of the thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ignacio
Member Avatar
Ex Corrupt Staff

Well Creacionists try to discredit Paleontology as a hoax so i can see why people would want to rant against Cracionists theories in this topic. Plus for what i've seen creacionists create their own blogs and museums sharing false, wrong and biased "information" about dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures and they claim that to be paleontology research... so yeah it is legit to discuss it in this topic. Honestly if you are a creacionist just don't look at this topic if you don't want to be offended by the things that are being said here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

this thread includes perception of paleontology as a part of paleontology
so all of that sort of thing would go here ;)

@Drax
people don't want to rant about actual dinosaurs, we WANT to SEE more actual dinosaurs, instead of more retrosaurs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


That's exactly what I'm trying to say here perhaps you all misunderstand me. Anyways.....


Something that doesn't exactly annoy me since I love the franchise, but I still think would be make it a whole lot better, is that JP still has scaly lizard dinos. Feel free to correct me since I've not been following JW in great detail, but I think they haven't changed that yet, am I right? You can't really get mad at them since by now it's kind of iconic for JP movies to have scaly dinos, really it's what the public wants and it would be stupid to change it, if you look at it a business point of view. I guess I just missed the part of history when porcupines mated with raptors:

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Guat
No Avatar


Drax
Jul 21 2014, 12:49 PM
That's exactly what I'm trying to say here perhaps you all misunderstand me. Anyways.....


Something that doesn't exactly annoy me since I love the franchise, but I still think would be make it a whole lot better, is that JP still has scaly lizard dinos. Feel free to correct me since I've not been following JW in great detail, but I think they haven't changed that yet, am I right? You can't really get mad at them since by now it's kind of iconic for JP movies to have scaly dinos, really it's what the public wants and it would be stupid to change it, if you look at it a business point of view. I guess I just missed the part of history when porcupines mated with raptors:

Posted Image
If they lost the scaly dinos then JP would be awfully weird as you don't know what happened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossAggron
Member Avatar
Formerly Dilophoraptor

Im just Annoyed with Everyones Fetish for This Thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon

I understand its a Mega Jaws but Come On!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Most of the public doesn't even know what Megalodon actually is. They think it's some 200-foot-long leviathan that lived during the Mesozoic and ate humpback-sized whales (which weren't around in the Mesozoic). As stargate has said before, Megalodon was only around 40-50 feet long (still gigantic by shark standards, only the whale and basking sharks reach that length today), it lived during the Miocene long after the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct, and the largest confirmed Megalodon kill was a 25-foot-long baleen whale.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Jul 21 2014, 02:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Drax
Member Avatar


I like the fact that you snuck in non-avian dinosaurs instead of calling them birds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


A lot of sources refer to "avian dinosaurs" and "non-avian dinosaurs" nowadays. Personally I think all of them should just be called dinosaurs (even though birds were named first, dinosaur sounds better :P ).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

cuz I'm lazy, here is my thoughts on megalodon as seen in the JW news thread :P

me
 
yes, please don't start a "MONSTER SHARK GIANT WHALE KILLER!!!" fad
the largest whale confirmed to actually be killed by meg was (IIRC) 23-25 ft long, hardly the humpback sized creatures its so often portrayed attacking
larger whales it scavenged, but no kills have been found
megalodon itself was also a lot smaller than most "documentaries" claim it to have been
(*discoverychannelBSdocumentarylastsharkweek*)

if there was any "whale killer" of the time it would have been one of a number of large and powerful whales, not megalodon
or, a certain black and white dolphin who happened to appear towards the end of megalodons geological range ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply