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 (256,341 Views)
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


BBBurns
Jul 26 2014, 11:16 AM
CyborgIguana
Jul 25 2014, 01:54 PM
Unfortunately there are many creationists who use exactly that argument to support the ridiculous, unfounded notion that dinosaurs never existed.

And any research that diminishes the coolness of dinosaurs should be banned? Seriously? Expanding our knowledge of these animals is far more important than clinging to some monumental idiot's idea of what constitutes a "kewl" dinosaur.
Surprisingly creationists (like myself) do believe that dinosaurs existed. The only thing that separates us is how dinosaurs came to be and how they died out.
I'm aware of that, I was just talking about some creationists. Sorry if it seemed like I was generalizing creationists. ;)

@trisdino: I trust whatever Mark Witton says about pterosaurs. Therefore since Witton says most of Peters' pterosaur theories are BS, I trust that that's fact.
Edited by CyborgIguana, Jul 26 2014, 02:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Burns
Member Avatar
King of Lemurs

That's fine Cyborg Iguana. People who are super-creationist like the persons your described get really annoying. Basic Creationists just don't believe in macro-evolution and a few other things involving that although I still believe in dinosaurs and micro-evolution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trisdino
Member Avatar


Micro and macro evolution.

You cannot have micro without macro, as macro is just micro on a larger scale.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

there is no "super" and "basic" creationists
there is old earth, and new earth/young earth
left wing, and right wing
Edited by stargatedalek, Jul 26 2014, 02:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trisdino
Member Avatar


Or more precisely: Probably wrong, and certainly wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dinosaurs-were-fluffy-like-chicks-3916793

Yet another article to treat feathered dinosaurs as a disgrace. And no, scientists are NOT debating whether the feathers lasted until adulthood. That's a lie made up by some stupid journalist! Plus it's been known that tyrannosaurs were feathered long before the discovery of the Siberian ornithischian, so why is this article treating the possibility (more like fact) that T. rex was fluffy like hot news?

I swear, if I hear ONE more person say that feathers are ugly, I am going to f**king SNAP!!!!
Edited by CyborgIguana, Jul 26 2014, 03:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trisdino
Member Avatar


Also... why is that article saying that they had down?...

This seems to be their logic: Dinosaurs had feathers, I do not like feathers, chickens have feathers, dinosaurs were chickens, but wait, they were not normal feathers, they were fur like feathers, baby chickens have fur like feathers, dinosaurs had baby chicken feathers, dinosaurs were like baby chickens.


Why is it so hard for them to just picture them as what they are. No, a tyrannosaurus is not a overgrown chicken, it is a fucking tyrannosaurus, stop calling it a chicken. It is not the scientists saying they looked like that, you are, tyrannosaurs did not even have modern day feathers, so it is literally impossible for them to have looked like chickens.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


CyborgIguana
Jul 26 2014, 03:00 PM
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dinosaurs-were-fluffy-like-chicks-3916793

Yet another article to treat feathered dinosaurs as a disgrace. And no, scientists are NOT debating whether the feathers lasted until adulthood. That's a lie made up by some stupid journalist! Plus it's been known that tyrannosaurs were feathered long before the discovery of the Siberian ornithischian, so why is this article treating the possibility (more like fact) that T. rex was fluffy like hot news?

I swear, if I hear ONE more person say that feathers are ugly, I am going to f**king SNAP!!!!
Right there with you. Honestly, ever since I've left, I've grown more adjusted to the idea of feathered Tyrannosaurs, so at this point, I think even a boring old stubborn traditionalist like me can leave behind the idea of scaly Tyrannosaurs as a thing of the past. So, if a stubborn old fart like me can adjust to the idea of a T. rex with feathers, why can't these punks?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

plus chickens can look seriously scary and badass, way more than any retro-derp-rex xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I'm all but done with these mediocre news articles. There was another one recently that reported a dinosaur coprolite from the Oligocene-Miocene epoch. Except anyone even remotely familiar with paleontology knows that dinosaurs were wiped out tens of millions of years before the Oligocene, so either the coprolite isn't actually from a dinosaur or the reporters got the era wrong. Either way, they failed miserably!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


stargatedalek
Jul 26 2014, 05:15 PM
plus chickens can look seriously scary and badass, way more than any retro-derp-rex xD
Hey hey, are you implying retro Tyrannosaurs can't be scary? Uh, these guys would like a word with you.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


When a giant carnivorous dinosaur "wants a word with you", that can never be good news. xD
Edited by CyborgIguana, Jul 26 2014, 05:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trisdino
Member Avatar


1. That land before time rex looks derpy as hell.

2. That jp rex looks okay, but it actually resembles a triassic pseudosuchian more than a dinosaur, and I still think a realistic rex would look cooler anyway.



Yeah, retro dinosaurs can look cool, but most of them are basically dragons, and dragons are cool, but that does not mean that we should call everything a dragon(I am looking at you dragons prophet)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


trisdino
Jul 26 2014, 05:54 PM
1. That land before time rex looks derpy as hell.
You're joking, right? Sharptooth was the terror of my childhood!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trisdino
Member Avatar


Same with me, but then again, so was an abstract drawing of a lion, which, looking back at it, more closely resembles a starfish that has gone through an unfortunate gene splicing operation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply