<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Sureal</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Sureal"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sureal"/>
	<updated>2026-11-11T21:45:49Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=RMS_Titanic&amp;diff=114829</id>
		<title>RMS Titanic</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=RMS_Titanic&amp;diff=114829"/>
		<updated>2007-04-18T15:10:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Rms2.jpg|thumb|300px|right|R.M.S. ''Titanic'', April 10, 1912.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''R.M.S.''Titanic''''' was a luxury passenger liner which sank after striking an iceberg on the night of April 14, 1912, while on its maiden voyage from [[Southampton]], England, to New York City, killing 1,517 passengers and crew.  The men allowed women and children to go first in filling the lifeboats.  This disaster has been the subject of films, plays, literature, and scientific scrutiny. What we can be certain of, however, is that its sinking was the fault of liberals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description==&lt;br /&gt;
''Titanic'' was built to sail the highly-competitive North Atlantic route by White Star Line.  Its chief competitor was Cunard, whose vessels recently garnered attention for their speed and luxury.  Designed and built by the Belfast firm Harland and Wolff, ''Titanic'' was at the time of her launch and outfitting the largest ship afloat: its gross tonnage was 46,329 tons, and displaced 66,000 tons fully-laden; it was 882.5 feet long and 92.5 feet across the beam.  For safety it was built with a double-bottom hull, which was further divided into sixteen watertight compartments, which would not affect the ship's stability if four were flooded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Maiden voyage==&lt;br /&gt;
''Titanic'' left Southampton on April 10, 1912, picking up additional passengers at Cherbourg, France, and Queenstown (now Cobh), Ireland, before heading out into the Atlantic.  At 11:40 pm on April 14, the ship was about 400 miles south of Newfoundland when it collided with an iceberg, rupturing six watertight compartments on the starboard side, resulting in flooding of the bow, and eventually flooding each watertight compartment aft until the ship broke apart at the surface and sank at 2:20 am on April 15.  The 706 survivors were rescued by the Cunard liner ''Carpathia'', which was more than 50 miles away when it first heard the distress calls; she arrived some eighty minutes after the ''Titanic'' went down.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Passengers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several of the wealthiest and most prominent persons in the world were passengers on the Titanic for its prestigious maiden voyage.  To their credit, they voluntarily went down with the ship and died rather than take a spot on a lifeboat from others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full passenger list is available that highlights who survived and who did not.[http://www.lva.lib.va.us/whoweare/exhibits/titanic/p2.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent Americans who went down with the ship included Mr. Benjamin Guggenheim, of the family that donated the Guggenheim Museum of modern art in New York City, Major Archibald Butt, a military aide to President Taft, and Colonel J.J. Astor, whose great grandfather was the wealthiest American prior to the Civil War.  Colonel J.J. Astor was an inventor and science fiction writer who helped build three great hotels in New York City: the Astoria (now the Waldorf-Astoria), the Knickerbocker, and the St. Regis.[http://www.britannica.com/titanic/astor.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Inquiries==&lt;br /&gt;
Inquiries conducted in both Great Britain and the United States determined a number of factors which contributed to the loss of the ship and passengers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The watertight compartments were designed without capping at the top; water filling the six ruptured compartments pulled the bow of the ship down far enough that water spilled over the top of the next compartment in line.  ''Titanic'' also had 16 standard lifeboats and 4 collapsibles, with enough combined space to carry 1,178 passengers, far short of the 2,224 persons aboard; many of the lifeboats were lowered down the side only partialy filled with passengers (many of those remaining onboard initially believed the ship to be &amp;quot;unsinkable&amp;quot;).  Although the number of lifeboats was determined to be inadequate, [http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepRec.php#a2] the Titanic had in actuality exceeded the British Board of Trade's lifeboat regulations, which had been written down for much smaller ships.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both inquiries also determined that part of the blame for the high loss of passengers rested with Captain Stanley Lord of the liner ''Californian'', which was stopped for the night by an ice field some twenty miles from ''Titanic''.  The board members alleged that ''Californian'' could have aided ''Titanic'' had its radio operator been on duty after 11:00 pm, and able to hear its distress signals.  Indeed, it was determined that officers on the bridge of the ''Californian'' had seen distress lights from what they considered to be a &amp;quot;large passenger steamer&amp;quot;, keeping under observation until the lights vanished after 2:00 am, but doing nothing further than that [http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepCalifornian.php].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the passengers who went into the water, only six were pulled out alive, and only by efforts of surviving officers in several boats going through a sea of bodies.  Hypothermia killed the remainder, as the water was about 29 degrees farenheit.  Many of those who perished came from wealthy, prominent families in Europe and America, among them the heirs to the Straus fortune and the owners of Macy's department store in New York City.  The disaster also had its heroes, such as the ship's band assembled on the stern in order to keep remaining passengers calm; and the &amp;quot;Unsinkable&amp;quot; Molly Brown, who forcibly took the tiller away from a rowboat crewman and forced everyone in her lifeboat to go back for people in the water. [http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic_victims/][http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the loss of ''Titanic'', in 1913 the first International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea was opened in London, England. Among the rules drawn up were requirements that each voyage hold lifeboat drills; that every ship have lifeboat space for each person onboard; and ships maintain a 24-hour radio watch. The International Ice Patrol was also created to keep watch on North Atlantic sea lanes and give ships adequate warnings of icebergs found.  The United States Congress also passed the Wireless Ship Act in 1912; it stipulated that all vessels carrying more than 50 people and traveling more than two hundred miles off the coast carry a wireless capable of at least a 100-mile range.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==''Titanic'' found==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:5462536r.jpg|right|thumb|Titanic's bow as seen from the Russian MIR I submersible.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The wreck was found on September 1, 1985 at 41°46′ N 50°14′ W, under 13,000 feet of water, by an American/French team led by Dr. Robert Ballard of Woods Hole Institute and Jean-Louis Michel of Ifremer.  Remote submersibles photographed the wreckage, which was in two pieces lying upright, confirming some witness accounts of the ship breaking in two at the surface.  Further explorations by Ballard and Ifremer could not find evidence of a long gash caused by the iceberg and cited on the original reports; instead it was postulated that a series of rivet popping combined with separation of seams and brittle fracturing in the hull plating allowed the water to rush in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==In Popular Culture==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Books and novels have been written about the ''Titanic'' ever since its infamous sinking. The most well-known of these novels is ''[[A Night to Remember]]''. In 1997, director James Cameron produced the highest-grossing film in history, ''[[Titanic (1997 film)|Titanic]]''. However, this film is inaccurate in several areas. For one thing, it depicted the men on board as cowardly. In real life, most of them willingly stood aside while the women and children got into the lifeboats. In the film, they had to be held back at gunpoint, and two were killed. It also showed an officer shooting himself in the head to avoid freezing to death. It also depicts Captain Edward Smith dying in the wheel room. This also is inaccurate, because several survivor accounts actually mention him swimming in the water, encouraging those clinging to a nearby capsized lifeboat before drowning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*Ballard, Robert D. ''The Discovery of the Titanic'' Warner Books, New York, (1995)&lt;br /&gt;
*Butler, Daniel Allen.  ''Unsinkable: The Full Story of RMS Titanic'', Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA (1998).&lt;br /&gt;
*Collins, L. M. ''The Sinking of the Titanic: The Mystery Solved'' Souvenir Press, London (2003)&lt;br /&gt;
*Gardener, R &amp;amp; van der Vat, D ''The Riddle of the Titanic'' Orion, London (1995)&lt;br /&gt;
*Kentley, Eric. ''Discover the Titanic'', DK Inc, New York (1997)&lt;br /&gt;
*Lord, Walter. ''A Night to Remember'', Bantam, New York (1997). &lt;br /&gt;
*Lynch, Donald and Marschall, Ken. ''Titanic: An Illustrated History'', Hyperion, New York (1995)&lt;br /&gt;
*Marcus, Geoffrey. ''The Maiden Voyage'', Buccaneer Books, New York (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
*Pellegrino, Charles R. ''Her Name, Titanic'' Avon, New York (1990)&lt;br /&gt;
*Wade, Wyn Craig. ''The Titanic: End of a Dream.'' Penguin Books, New York (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
*Wels, Susan. ''Titanic: Legacy of the World's Greatest Ocean Liner'', Time-Life, New York (1997)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/USReport/AmInqRep03.php United States inquiry]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOT01.php Great Britain inquiry]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.titanichistoricalsociety.org Titanic Historical Society]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.paullee.com/titanic/index.html Titanic essays and links]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://titanic.deep-ice.com/ Titanic Archive] &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.titanic-titanic.com/ Titanic-Titanic.com] &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.titanic-online.com/ RMS Titanic, Inc] The official ''Titanic'' archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.atlanticliners.com/titanic_home.htm ''Titanic Home'' at Atlantic Liners.]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://news.titanic.org.uk/ Titanic News Headlines]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/ Encyclopedia Titanica]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:history]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=91346</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=91346"/>
		<updated>2007-04-07T14:17:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* OK */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alternative version of the article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's a bit hard to tell what's different about the alternative article.  A comparison with the current article shows lots of differences, but much of that is due to some heavy editing of the current article recently.  Comparing the first version of the alternative (presumably a straight copy of the then-current article) with the latest version of the alternative shows some differences, but most of them seem to have been incorporated into the current article anyway (although I haven't compared how closely the &amp;quot;history of dinosaur paleontology&amp;quot; sections match).&lt;br /&gt;
The other main change is the introduction, where the alternative version states matter-of-factly that the evolutionary view is based on &amp;quot;overwhelming scientific evidence&amp;quot; (which claim, as it goes on to say, creationists dispute of course).  Naturally I'd object to this view being put as though it is correct.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I am mostly happy with the current article.  Given the ed staff, it's the best it'll ever get.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 02:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Let's Have this &amp;quot;Evolutionary&amp;quot; Debate Here &amp;amp; Now ==&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative, you have never rebutted my contention that &amp;quot;evolutionary,&amp;quot; used as a qualifier to the entire field of science, is nothing more than a qualifier-word designed to make scientists sound less credible.  There is a branch of science called &amp;quot;evolutionary biology,&amp;quot; but they do not deal with dinosaurs.  If you do not properly rebut this argument, I will change the article to not use the word &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; except where appropriate.  -'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 01:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Here is what AmesG said regarding material he posted in regards to it's veracity:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight.&amp;quot;  [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Answers_in_Genesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Do we really need users who care so little about whether their material is factual or not?   Do we need users who are so pugnacious that the facts don't really matter?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I say we cannot afford to babysit AmesG anymore. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Inappropriate edit here. See my reply on Andy's page.  Stick to the point.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 01:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Creationary&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative, that ''you've'' never heard the word &amp;quot;creationary&amp;quot; is not really the point, is it?  That ''most'' haven't may be a point, but I dispute the relevance of that.  It is perfectly legitimate in English to append standard prefixes and suffixes to words regardless of whether the resulting word has ever been used before, and &amp;quot;creationary&amp;quot; is just following that pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Creationary&amp;quot; is also a good balance to &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot;; if the latter is acceptable, why not the former?  At least it provides for consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it has in fact been in use for quite some time, and was included in a dictionary nearly 50 years ago.  Please read [http://www.geocities.com/hftamke/creation.html here] for more information, including why &amp;quot;creationist&amp;quot; is not the best word to use where an adjective is required.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm down with that compromise.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 01:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I think we should not use the word &amp;quot;creationary&amp;quot; if it is not in more than one current very large dictionary.  That's my two cents.  I will not start an edit war about it though!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AmesG, I don't follow.  I suspect that you were objecting to the term &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot;, but that you'd be happy if both &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;creationary&amp;quot; are used.  Is that correct?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's right.  If both sides sound ridiculous, no problem.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 01:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::The terms may be uncommon, but I fail to see how they are, or make the topic sound, ridiculous.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Then I must have misspoken.  Let's use them both.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 02:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Snipping apparent joke==&lt;br /&gt;
:However, a certain &amp;quot;Dr. Karl Pilkington&amp;quot;, has used numerous reliable paleontological sources, such as &amp;quot;1 million years BC&amp;quot;, by the eminent social philosopher Racquel Welch, to deduce that since dinosaurs and humans have once lived, there must be &amp;quot;some cross over point&amp;quot; where both roamed the Earth. This standpoint has gained a large amount of publicity, and is now taken more seriously than accepted extinction theory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/  One Million Years BC] is a 1966 science fiction movie, and [http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/onemillionbc3sh.jpg Raquel Welch] was the &amp;quot;curvy&amp;quot; actress who starred in it. Karl Pilkington produces a radio show and has [http://www.pilkipedia.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page his own Wiki]. Sounds like someone was having fun. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== OK ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let's discuss this:&lt;br /&gt;
*  For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.  An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Has anyone in the last 100 years report seeing a dinosaur?  Anyone?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This contradicts the section title.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.[25] World Book Encyclopedia says, &amp;quot;In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth.&amp;quot;[25] Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, and in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does this have to do with anything.  There are a lot of cultural references to animals which don't even exist!  This makes no sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Again, contradicts section title.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Among those who believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, one popular theory is that it is a living plesiosaur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Has anyone seen that?[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I don't understand your claim that two of those points &amp;quot;contradict the section title&amp;quot;.  The section title is &amp;quot;Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting&amp;quot;, and each of those points provide support (not proof, but support) of humans and dinosaurs coexisting at some time (or are you reading the section title as saying that they coexist ''now''?).&lt;br /&gt;
:I doubt that there are ''lots'' of cultural references to animals which don't exist, but the point here is that cultural references to creatures with descriptions matching dinosaurs supports the idea of dinosaurs and humans coexisting, especially when there are so many references from two continents.&lt;br /&gt;
:By the way, I smiled at your reference to &amp;quot;evil British punctunation&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: You are suggesting that the cyclops existed? When a potentially simpler answer is &amp;quot;the ancient Greeks saw an elephant skull[http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk/images/elephant_skull_0.jpg]?&amp;quot;  You can have cultural references to something without it existing (dragons, unicorns, boogie man, fairies, etc...) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::No, I'm not suggesting that the cyclops existed.  I didn't deny that there are ''some'' cultural references to animals that didn't exist, and I'll go further and admit that perhaps the Greeks had quite a few.  But by the same token, people too readily dismiss cultural references to things they haven't otherwise heard of rather than see if there might be a basis for them.  The descriptions of dragons are many and widespread, and largely consistent with descriptions of dinosaurs.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Actually, as I understand it, the dragons that appeared in the different cultures (including English culture) wheren't actually that similiar to dinosaurs. If anything, they were more serpent like. In some cases, they were extremely different. The 'looking kindda like dinosaurs' is just the modern interpretation of dragons. Ironically, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good page on them. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 10:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=66153</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=66153"/>
		<updated>2007-03-26T10:18:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: So, so horribly wrong, Sureal, but don't sweat it.  We are descended from amniotes, therefore we are amniotes, we are descended from vertebrates, therefore we are vertebrates, we are descended from mammals, therefore we are mammals, etc. down the classificatory tree for life.  [[User:RedDedNedHed|RedDedNedHed]]~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Does that make me a Prokaryote? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 18:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon.   Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit.   [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservative!    You have work to be done here!   The Godless are denying You!    Edit, then lock!  [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis.  The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Google search a sentence?  I included the link to the full article!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote.  They are '''&amp;quot;probing&amp;quot;. '''  The devil is in the details.  Creationism is still the best answer.  Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded.  You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: &amp;quot;Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''.&amp;quot;  Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Maybe we could add something about..==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''&amp;quot;The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth&amp;quot;.'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Question! When you say &amp;quot;keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased&amp;quot;, do you mean as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is &amp;quot;entirely false&amp;quot; or as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; that is not a fact.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;.  I reasonably said when I composed: &amp;quot;according to creationist scientists&amp;quot;.  They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; the phrase &amp;quot;according to evolutionary scientists&amp;quot;.  I protected the article until they agreed to do that.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. ''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once?  --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Is the following sentence a fact? &amp;quot;Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.&amp;quot;   Or is it scientists opinion?  Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587   The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring.  Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise.  If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: &amp;quot;Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.&amp;quot;  yes? no?  Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken.  One little disclaimer followed by &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; is totally unacceptable.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;. You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your &amp;quot;cited&amp;quot; (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article.  I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like &amp;quot;creationist assert&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Opponents of the evolutionary position assert&amp;quot; etc etc.   It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent a bit)&lt;br /&gt;
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what &amp;quot;can be in&amp;quot; and what &amp;quot;must go out&amp;quot;. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given.  I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like &amp;quot;classification&amp;quot; for animal/plant articles.  We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic.  It is a win-win scenario.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact.  Facts are provable by evidence.  Creationism is an opinion informed by faith.  Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way.  Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 &amp;amp; 6.  Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source.  Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
== Loch Ness Monster ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait... really?  We're going with the Loch Ness Monster?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh, good grief. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You have a problem with this?    I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water.  [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If only you could find it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Suggestion for intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
May I create a &amp;quot;sandbox&amp;quot; for alternative versions of the intro?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[/intro]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You mean like [[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]], which we tried here with not much success? It ''could'' work well. What would be needed is a sysop &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;&lt;br /&gt;
::*not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;&lt;br /&gt;
::*committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise dialogue as far as &amp;quot;disqualifiers&amp;quot;  like &amp;quot;according to evolutionary scientists&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors.  Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless.  Guess I'm wrong?  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes this article inherently different from anything else?  Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem.  Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex.  Lastly, your analogy fails.  When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn.  By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate.  We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision.  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe I should break it down for you.  Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense.  Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page.  2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page.  3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Try to keep up.  Slow minds keep right.  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] (in general, [[:Category:Conservapedia maintenance]] is a good place to look for things like this).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: &amp;quot;Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up&amp;quot;. So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles: &lt;br /&gt;
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.&lt;br /&gt;
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.&lt;br /&gt;
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Why only those two?  What makes those two so special?  Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two &amp;quot;sides&amp;quot; currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories?  (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: [[user:Conservative|Cons]], can we get the words &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; taken out of the science part of the article?  It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old.  If you want to convey the point, &amp;quot;I don't believe in evolution,&amp;quot; please think of a good disclaimer.-&lt;br /&gt;
: Also, could this compromise also apply to the [[Theory of evolution|anti-evolution polemic article]] that we also fight about?  [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Creationist Scientists Perspective&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the edit war involved someone removing &amp;quot;Creationist Scientists Perspective&amp;quot; and replacing it with &amp;quot;Creationist Perspect&amp;quot;.  I see no reason why this should be done.  This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material==&lt;br /&gt;
Pursuant to [[User:Conservative]]'s suggestion [[User_talk:Dpbsmith#Compromise._I_put_a_link_for_you|here]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I propose that the paragraph currently reading&lt;br /&gt;
:Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.&lt;br /&gt;
be replaced with this sentence:&lt;br /&gt;
:Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'&amp;quot;, ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: &amp;quot;Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the [[Loch Ness Monster]] article. No more needs to be said in [[Dinosaur]] other than to mention it briefly, if it all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in ''this'' article whatsoever, but ''if'' it were real and ''if'' it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The DNA-argument ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just don't get it. After I read the linked article  (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp),&lt;br /&gt;
i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the &amp;quot;DNA-aspect&amp;quot; to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like &amp;quot;we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park&amp;quot;!&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wow, not going to lie, I thought that article might have been a parody at first. This article tries to associate psuedoscience in a '''fiction''' movie to real science and &amp;quot;evolutionists.&amp;quot;  The author's arguments are simply ridiculous, and I have a hard time taking this seriously. As much as I disagree with Creationism, seeing the beauty and the awesomeness of nature and life (esp. after my recent afternoon at the aquarium), I can understand the argument that this universe must have a creator. However, articles such as this take every bit of respect I have for Creationism and rip it apart. Please, as a service to yourselves, Creationists, don't cite or refer to such articles. They're not going to help your case in anyone's eyes but your own. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==To User:Conservative==&lt;br /&gt;
I was going to put this on your Talk page, but apparently it is currently protected ??!! I thought you were suggesting that the paragraph in [[Dinosaur]] be replaced with &amp;quot;a link,&amp;quot; i.e. a short sentence linking to [[Loch Ness Monster]], and that all of the details on whether it does or does not exist and whether it is or is not a dinosaur could then be presented there. That seemed very sensible to me, and I proposed specific language above. However, you haven't followed through, and based on what you say on my Talk page all I can say is that obviously I misunderstood you and I do not grasp what you want as a replacement for the incoherent paragraph that is there now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Please add this to the article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please add this material to the article:&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,&lt;br /&gt;
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word &amp;quot;chance&amp;quot; in such a phrase as &amp;quot;chance variation&amp;quot; does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclop&amp;amp;aelig;dia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== It's a lie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs are made up! This page should be deleted. The world is only 6000 years old. Scientists planted the bones to make us think that the world is older. Everyone needs to read the Bible. It's the only truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Now, now conservative you didn't need to make a sockpuppet. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My God you're right! What were we thinking!? I'd go on a missionary journey tomorrow and tell EVERYBODY on Earth...but then I might fall off of the edge, so I'll just stay home. {{unsigned| Cracker}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== OK, so what's a dinosaur?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entry is titled dinosaur but the vast majority of it is nothing more than theological rambling about when they did in fact exist. By the way, alot of early fossil discoveries WERE put off by the religious as tricks of God to test our faith. One last point: has anyone here heard of the idea of the &amp;quot;God given light of reason&amp;quot;? It's the idea that God gave you a mind capable of understanding the world around you---all knowledge must be found by the individual mind, not regurgitated from one unthinking to mouth to another. You should look into it. Maybe it will change your perspective. --Pollyp&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==OH DEAR GOD FACTS MADE IT INTO THIS ARTICLE==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quick conservative block this page and delete, delete, delete. I have figured out conservatives problem. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome Asperger's Syndrome]. I have to link to wikipedia because this site is spending all its time debating the Flinstones version of paleontology to develop actual articles. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Burn!  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Please refrain from taking the Lord's name in vain. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;According to creationist scientists&amp;quot; is an oxymoron. Creationism is based on faith, and proof denies faith. So, if a &amp;quot;creationist scientist&amp;quot; was to prove that creationism is fact and not idle speculation based on insecurity, &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;then the world would implode&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; the existence of God would be proven. I could go on to prove that black is white, but then we'd all be in trouble at the next zebra crossing. (Adams, 1986:42)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Works Cited&lt;br /&gt;
:Adams, D. (1986). ''The more than complete hitchhiker's guide.'' New York:Longmeadow Press.&lt;br /&gt;
::--[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You're joking, right? You can't cite Douglas Adams in this article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:As opposed to the sources we have now? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, If we're considering AiG as a legitimate source to cite nearly every reference from, then Adams should be a fine reference. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 01:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's these sorts of ad hominem attacks that encourage the view that anti-creationists are not interested in rational debate.  Anti-creationists rarely explain why &amp;quot;creation scientist&amp;quot; is an oxymoron until pressed, and even then it comes down to the following:&lt;br /&gt;
# Creation scientist is an oxymoron because creationism is not science.&lt;br /&gt;
# Creationism is not science because we've redefined science in such a way as to exclude creationism.&lt;br /&gt;
The argument might get a bit more sophisticated than that, but that's what it boils down to in the end.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Redefined 'science'? Um, mind giving any sources to demonstrate that? Cos at the moment, it seems as though you've just pulled that one from out of the air. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 06:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Sureal&amp;diff=64711</id>
		<title>User:Sureal</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Sureal&amp;diff=64711"/>
		<updated>2007-03-25T14:21:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: New page: I am awesome.  That is all.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I am awesome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is all.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=58272</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=58272"/>
		<updated>2007-03-22T22:28:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* Birds */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: So, so horribly wrong, Sureal, but don't sweat it.  We are descended from amniotes, therefore we are amniotes, we are descended from vertebrates, therefore we are vertebrates, we are descended from mammals, therefore we are mammals, etc. down the classificatory tree for life.  [[User:RedDedNedHed|RedDedNedHed]]~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Does that make me a Prokaryote? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 18:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon.   Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit.   [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservative!    You have work to be done here!   The Godless are denying You!    Edit, then lock!  [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis.  The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Google search a sentence?  I included the link to the full article!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote.  They are '''&amp;quot;probing&amp;quot;. '''  The devil is in the details.  Creationism is still the best answer.  Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded.  You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: &amp;quot;Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''.&amp;quot;  Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Maybe we could add something about..==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''&amp;quot;The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth&amp;quot;.'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Question! When you say &amp;quot;keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased&amp;quot;, do you mean as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is &amp;quot;entirely false&amp;quot; or as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; that is not a fact.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;.  I reasonably said when I composed: &amp;quot;according to creationist scientists&amp;quot;.  They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; the phrase &amp;quot;according to evolutionary scientists&amp;quot;.  I protected the article until they agreed to do that.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. ''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once?  --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Is the following sentence a fact? &amp;quot;Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.&amp;quot;   Or is it scientists opinion?  Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587   The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring.  Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise.  If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: &amp;quot;Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.&amp;quot;  yes? no?  Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken.  One little disclaimer followed by &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; is totally unacceptable.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;. You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your &amp;quot;cited&amp;quot; (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article.  I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like &amp;quot;creationist assert&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Opponents of the evolutionary position assert&amp;quot; etc etc.   It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent a bit)&lt;br /&gt;
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what &amp;quot;can be in&amp;quot; and what &amp;quot;must go out&amp;quot;. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given.  I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like &amp;quot;classification&amp;quot; for animal/plant articles.  We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic.  It is a win-win scenario.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact.  Facts are provable by evidence.  Creationism is an opinion informed by faith.  Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way.  Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 &amp;amp; 6.  Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source.  Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
== Loch Ness Monster ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait... really?  We're going with the Loch Ness Monster?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh, good grief. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You have a problem with this?    I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water.  [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If only you could find it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Suggestion for intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
May I create a &amp;quot;sandbox&amp;quot; for alternative versions of the intro?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[/intro]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You mean like [[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]], which we tried here with not much success? It ''could'' work well. What would be needed is a sysop &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;&lt;br /&gt;
::*not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;&lt;br /&gt;
::*committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise dialogue as far as &amp;quot;disqualifiers&amp;quot;  like &amp;quot;according to evolutionary scientists&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors.  Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless.  Guess I'm wrong?  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes this article inherently different from anything else?  Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem.  Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex.  Lastly, your analogy fails.  When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn.  By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate.  We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision.  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe I should break it down for you.  Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense.  Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page.  2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page.  3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Try to keep up.  Slow minds keep right.  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] (in general, [[:Category:Conservapedia maintenance]] is a good place to look for things like this).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: &amp;quot;Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up&amp;quot;. So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles: &lt;br /&gt;
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.&lt;br /&gt;
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.&lt;br /&gt;
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Why only those two?  What makes those two so special?  Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two &amp;quot;sides&amp;quot; currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories?  (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: [[user:Conservative|Cons]], can we get the words &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; taken out of the science part of the article?  It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old.  If you want to convey the point, &amp;quot;I don't believe in evolution,&amp;quot; please think of a good disclaimer.-&lt;br /&gt;
: Also, could this compromise also apply to the [[Theory of evolution|anti-evolution polemic article]] that we also fight about?  [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Creationist Scientists Perspective&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the edit war involved someone removing &amp;quot;Creationist Scientists Perspective&amp;quot; and replacing it with &amp;quot;Creationist Perspect&amp;quot;.  I see no reason why this should be done.  This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material==&lt;br /&gt;
Pursuant to [[User:Conservative]]'s suggestion [[User_talk:Dpbsmith#Compromise._I_put_a_link_for_you|here]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I propose that the paragraph currently reading&lt;br /&gt;
:Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.&lt;br /&gt;
be replaced with this sentence:&lt;br /&gt;
:Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'&amp;quot;, ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: &amp;quot;Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the [[Loch Ness Monster]] article. No more needs to be said in [[Dinosaur]] other than to mention it briefly, if it all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in ''this'' article whatsoever, but ''if'' it were real and ''if'' it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The DNA-argument ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just don't get it. After I read the linked article  (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp),&lt;br /&gt;
i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the &amp;quot;DNA-aspect&amp;quot; to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like &amp;quot;we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park&amp;quot;!&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wow, not going to lie, I thought that article might have been a parody at first. This article tries to associate psuedoscience in a '''fiction''' movie to real science and &amp;quot;evolutionists.&amp;quot;  The author's arguments are simply ridiculous, and I have a hard time taking this seriously. As much as I disagree with Creationism, seeing the beauty and the awesomeness of nature and life (esp. after my recent afternoon at the aquarium), I can understand the argument that this universe must have a creator. However, articles such as this take every bit of respect I have for Creationism and rip it apart. Please, as a service to yourselves, Creationists, don't cite or refer to such articles. They're not going to help your case in anyone's eyes but your own. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=58263</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=58263"/>
		<updated>2007-03-22T22:25:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* Birds */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: So, so horribly wrong, Sureal, but don't sweat it.  We are descended from amniotes, therefore we are amniotes, we are descended from vertebrates, therefore we are vertebrates, we are descended from mammals, therefore we are mammals, etc. down the classificatory tree for life.  [[User:RedDedNedHed|RedDedNedHed]]~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Does that make me a single-cell organism? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 18:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon.   Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit.   [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservative!    You have work to be done here!   The Godless are denying You!    Edit, then lock!  [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis.  The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Google search a sentence?  I included the link to the full article!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote.  They are '''&amp;quot;probing&amp;quot;. '''  The devil is in the details.  Creationism is still the best answer.  Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded.  You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: &amp;quot;Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''.&amp;quot;  Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Maybe we could add something about..==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''&amp;quot;The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth&amp;quot;.'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Question! When you say &amp;quot;keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased&amp;quot;, do you mean as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is &amp;quot;entirely false&amp;quot; or as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; that is not a fact.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;.  I reasonably said when I composed: &amp;quot;according to creationist scientists&amp;quot;.  They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; the phrase &amp;quot;according to evolutionary scientists&amp;quot;.  I protected the article until they agreed to do that.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. ''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once?  --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Is the following sentence a fact? &amp;quot;Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.&amp;quot;   Or is it scientists opinion?  Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587   The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring.  Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise.  If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: &amp;quot;Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.&amp;quot;  yes? no?  Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken.  One little disclaimer followed by &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; is totally unacceptable.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;. You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your &amp;quot;cited&amp;quot; (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article.  I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like &amp;quot;creationist assert&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Opponents of the evolutionary position assert&amp;quot; etc etc.   It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent a bit)&lt;br /&gt;
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what &amp;quot;can be in&amp;quot; and what &amp;quot;must go out&amp;quot;. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given.  I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like &amp;quot;classification&amp;quot; for animal/plant articles.  We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic.  It is a win-win scenario.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact.  Facts are provable by evidence.  Creationism is an opinion informed by faith.  Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way.  Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 &amp;amp; 6.  Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source.  Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
== Loch Ness Monster ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait... really?  We're going with the Loch Ness Monster?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh, good grief. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You have a problem with this?    I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water.  [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If only you could find it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Suggestion for intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
May I create a &amp;quot;sandbox&amp;quot; for alternative versions of the intro?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[/intro]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You mean like [[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]], which we tried here with not much success? It ''could'' work well. What would be needed is a sysop &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;&lt;br /&gt;
::*not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;&lt;br /&gt;
::*committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise dialogue as far as &amp;quot;disqualifiers&amp;quot;  like &amp;quot;according to evolutionary scientists&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors.  Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless.  Guess I'm wrong?  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What makes this article inherently different from anything else?  Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem.  Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex.  Lastly, your analogy fails.  When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn.  By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate.  We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision.  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe I should break it down for you.  Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense.  Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page.  2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page.  3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Try to keep up.  Slow minds keep right.  --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] (in general, [[:Category:Conservapedia maintenance]] is a good place to look for things like this).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: &amp;quot;Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up&amp;quot;. So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles: &lt;br /&gt;
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.&lt;br /&gt;
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.&lt;br /&gt;
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Why only those two?  What makes those two so special?  Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two &amp;quot;sides&amp;quot; currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories?  (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: [[user:Conservative|Cons]], can we get the words &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; taken out of the science part of the article?  It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old.  If you want to convey the point, &amp;quot;I don't believe in evolution,&amp;quot; please think of a good disclaimer.-&lt;br /&gt;
: Also, could this compromise also apply to the [[Theory of evolution|anti-evolution polemic article]] that we also fight about?  [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Creationist Scientists Perspective&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the edit war involved someone removing &amp;quot;Creationist Scientists Perspective&amp;quot; and replacing it with &amp;quot;Creationist Perspect&amp;quot;.  I see no reason why this should be done.  This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material==&lt;br /&gt;
Pursuant to [[User:Conservative]]'s suggestion [[User_talk:Dpbsmith#Compromise._I_put_a_link_for_you|here]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I propose that the paragraph currently reading&lt;br /&gt;
:Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.&lt;br /&gt;
be replaced with this sentence:&lt;br /&gt;
:Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'&amp;quot;, ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: &amp;quot;Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the [[Loch Ness Monster]] article. No more needs to be said in [[Dinosaur]] other than to mention it briefly, if it all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in ''this'' article whatsoever, but ''if'' it were real and ''if'' it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The DNA-argument ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just don't get it. After I read the linked article  (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp),&lt;br /&gt;
i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the &amp;quot;DNA-aspect&amp;quot; to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like &amp;quot;we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park&amp;quot;!&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wow, not going to lie, I thought that article might have been a parody at first. This article tries to associate psuedoscience in a '''fiction''' movie to real science and &amp;quot;evolutionists.&amp;quot;  The author's arguments are simply ridiculous, and I have a hard time taking this seriously. As much as I disagree with Creationism, seeing the beauty and the awesomeness of nature and life (esp. after my recent afternoon at the aquarium), I can understand the argument that this universe must have a creator. However, articles such as this take every bit of respect I have for Creationism and rip it apart. Please, as a service to yourselves, Creationists, don't cite or refer to such articles. They're not going to help your case in anyone's eyes but your own. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 04:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52472</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52472"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T21:45:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis.  The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Google search a sentence?  I included the link to the full article!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote.  They are '''&amp;quot;probing&amp;quot;. '''  The devil is in the details.  Creationism is still the best answer.  Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded.  You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: &amp;quot;Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''.&amp;quot;  Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Maybe we could add something about..==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''&amp;quot;The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth&amp;quot;.'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Question! When you say &amp;quot;keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased&amp;quot;, do you mean as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is &amp;quot;entirely false&amp;quot; or as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; that is not a fact.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;.  I reasonably said when I composed: &amp;quot;according to creationist scientists&amp;quot;.  They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; the phrase &amp;quot;according to evolutionary scientists&amp;quot;.  I protected the article until they agreed to do that.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. ''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once?  --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Is the following sentence a fact? &amp;quot;Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.&amp;quot;   Or is it scientists opinion?  Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587   The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring.  Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise.  If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: &amp;quot;Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.&amp;quot;  yes? no?  Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken.  One little disclaimer followed by &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; is totally unacceptable.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Loch Ness Monster ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait... really?  We're going with the Loch Ness Monster?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52404</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52404"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T21:21:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis.  The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Google search a sentence?  I included the link to the full article!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote.  They are '''&amp;quot;probing&amp;quot;. '''  The devil is in the details.  Creationism is still the best answer.  Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded.  You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: &amp;quot;Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''.&amp;quot;  Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Maybe we could add something about..==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''&amp;quot;The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth&amp;quot;.'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Question! When you say &amp;quot;keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased&amp;quot;, do you mean as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is &amp;quot;entirely false&amp;quot; or as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; that is not a fact.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;.  I reasonably said when I composed: &amp;quot;according to creationist scientists&amp;quot;.  They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; the phrase &amp;quot;according to evolutionary scientists&amp;quot;.  I protected the article until they agreed to do that.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. ''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52396</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52396"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T21:19:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis.  The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Google search a sentence?  I included the link to the full article!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote.  They are '''&amp;quot;probing&amp;quot;. '''  The devil is in the details.  Creationism is still the best answer.  Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded.  You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: &amp;quot;Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''.&amp;quot;  Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Maybe we could add something about..==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''&amp;quot;The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth&amp;quot;.'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Question! When you say &amp;quot;keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased&amp;quot;, do you mean as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is &amp;quot;entirely false&amp;quot; or as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; that is not a fact.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; after &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;.  I reasonably said when I composed: &amp;quot;according to creationist scientists&amp;quot;.  They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their &amp;quot;facts&amp;quot; the phrase &amp;quot;according to evolutionary scientists&amp;quot;.  I protected the article until they agreed to do that.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. ''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52278</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52278"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T20:45:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* More quote mining */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis.  The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Google search a sentence?  I included the link to the full article!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote.  They are '''&amp;quot;probing&amp;quot;. '''  The devil is in the details.  Creationism is still the best answer.  Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded.  You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: &amp;quot;Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''.&amp;quot;  Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Maybe we could add something about..==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''&amp;quot;The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth&amp;quot;.'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Question! When you say &amp;quot;keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased&amp;quot;, do you mean as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is &amp;quot;entirely false&amp;quot; or as &amp;quot;entirely un-biased&amp;quot; as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=52259</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=52259"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T20:39:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: This is an un-biased version - it gives both sides of the arguments - is well sourced, and has no quote mining (to my knowledge). Gnarly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the  [[Greek]] for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor).  Dinosaurs were a group of large [[reptiles]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism==&lt;br /&gt;
Creationist scientists believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted based on a number of pieces of evidence rather than the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===&lt;br /&gt;
There are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting.  For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Creationism===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some [[Christian|Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'', 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; as a final addendum to the wonders God created, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of various dinosaurs were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp &amp;quot;Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?&amp;quot;], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp &amp;quot;Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp &amp;quot;Are dinosaurs alive today?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp &amp;quot;Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?&amp;quot;], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some reject this view, saying that behemoth was a hippopotamus and leviathan was a crocodile. There is a problem with this view, however, such as the fact that a hippo doesn't have a &amp;quot;tail like a cedar&amp;quot; and a crocodile does not accurately match the description of leviathan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs through Science==&lt;br /&gt;
What follow are the perspectives on dinosaurs accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, through use of the [[scientific method]], and taught at the United States' major research universities.  Following any of the references in this section will lead to scientific treatment of the issue discussed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Extinction===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what we call the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]].  This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.  Although scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find, based on strong geological evidence, that the K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kevin O Pope, &amp;quot;Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary,&amp;quot; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Evidence of the dust that caused this long winter is still visible, though, as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Ibid.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The crater is also visible.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cambrian Life Explosion===&lt;br /&gt;
The extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals.  As a result of a new &amp;quot;vacancy&amp;quot; in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out.  What we now know as [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, &amp;quot;Life in the Universe,&amp;quot; viewable at http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Birds===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs.  This is cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, &amp;quot;New Dinosaur Discovered: T-Rex Cousin Had Feathers,&amp;quot; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaur Speciation===&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaur species were immensely varied, from herbivores to carnivores.  Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast genus that the dinosaurs encompassed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Science]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52096</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=52096"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T19:58:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* More quote mining */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and &amp;quot;evolutionary&amp;quot; views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis.  The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote.  They are '''&amp;quot;probing&amp;quot;. '''  The devil is in the details.  Creationism is still the best answer.  Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited.   [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51996</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51996"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T19:32:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* This article's getting worse */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for probing the origin of feathers. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51992</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51992"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T19:31:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* More quote mining */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More quote mining==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Conservative's quote-mined paragraph&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —&lt;br /&gt;
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for probing the origin of feathers. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51950</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51950"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T19:17:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: /* Unlocked */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51949</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51949"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T19:16:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: This article's getting worse&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This article's getting worse ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51935</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=51935"/>
		<updated>2007-03-20T19:13:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It's impossible to take this page seriously.   Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously.   However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that &amp;quot;according to evoutionary scientists&amp;quot; is allowed, but not &amp;quot;according to creatiionists&amp;quot; is not mentioned once.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Protection as of 3/19 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts.  Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source?  Should we put that somewhere?  And then you &amp;quot;protected&amp;quot; the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Eh?  They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it.  There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time).  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts.  I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts?  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with &amp;quot;vandalism&amp;quot; having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wonder when I'll get banned next.  Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article.  [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent?  And in your answer, I don't want the site &amp;quot;Answers In Genesis&amp;quot; to come up once.  Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Experience with Dinosaurs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservative POV?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section &amp;quot;Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism&amp;quot; is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quote Mining==&lt;br /&gt;
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found   here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species  (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.&lt;br /&gt;
''') reads as such:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative,  have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unlocked ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Were my edits wrong?  I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact.  Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I think she meant things Conservative regards as &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the &amp;quot;(?)&amp;quot; part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)&lt;br /&gt;
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;amp;diff=51774&amp;amp;oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the &amp;quot;Violations of conservapedia fact policy&amp;quot; comment in the left version and the &amp;quot;These are not facts! *delete delete delete*&amp;quot; edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material.  I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with &amp;quot;propaganda&amp;quot; or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=45764</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=45764"/>
		<updated>2007-03-18T17:57:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&amp;amp;images=images/modeng&amp;amp;data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&amp;amp;tag=public&amp;amp;part=11&amp;amp;division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No mention of popular documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French.  There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper &amp;quot;foreign&amp;quot; spelling of words.  Because it's not a dumbed-down version.  Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE.  How is that a rationalized &amp;quot;improvement&amp;quot;?  Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters?  And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Needed Corrections==&lt;br /&gt;
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles.  Note that not all dinosaurs were large.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are you scared to be wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all.  Amazing what animals do to survive.  On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=41615</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=41615"/>
		<updated>2007-03-16T17:01:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oi Vey==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article.  95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans.  They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased.  Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas.  I forgot we can't include those.  Seriously, someone fix it.  It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark.  Obsurd.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=38905</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=38905"/>
		<updated>2007-03-15T18:57:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Creation scientists do.  Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=38654</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=38654"/>
		<updated>2007-03-15T17:25:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=38646</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=38646"/>
		<updated>2007-03-15T17:23:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Modern Day Dinosaurs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said &amp;quot;dinosaurs&amp;quot; that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How absurd!==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Picture==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down.  He thinks it's legit.  Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;American English is a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;practise&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the American dialect &amp;quot;practice&amp;quot; is used for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In English, &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; is a verb and &amp;quot;licence&amp;quot; is a noun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Americans use &amp;quot;license&amp;quot; for both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So much for &amp;quot;a rationalised improvement on British English&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CAS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
If one is going to &amp;quot;discuss&amp;quot; dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word &amp;quot;dinosaur&amp;quot; right. &amp;quot;Dinos sauros&amp;quot; is GREEK, not Latin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edit made.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
AQ&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected.  Please be aware of vandalism.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative&lt;br /&gt;
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Protected &amp;quot;Dinosaur&amp;quot;: protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So how much factual information is going to be left here once this &amp;quot;clean up&amp;quot; has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't even regard it as pro-&amp;quot;Christian&amp;quot;, it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one.  Should be exciting soon.  Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do.  If you do create &amp;quot;liberalpedia&amp;quot; we will probably make a page for you.  --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Raymond Burr==&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very surprise the sentence about the &amp;quot;documentary&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Raymond Burr&amp;quot; has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=36221</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=36221"/>
		<updated>2007-03-14T22:36:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: Fixing minor vandalism&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the  [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor).  Dinosaurs were a group of large [[reptiles]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The consensus among peer-reviewed science is that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (however [[birds]] are considered by scientists to be descended from early [[therapod]] dinosaurs).  Many Creationists dispute this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs through Science==&lt;br /&gt;
What follow are the perspectives on dinosaurs accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, through use of the [[scientific method]], and taught in the world's major research universities.  Following any of the references in this section will lead to scientific treatment of the issue discussed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaur Speciation===&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaur species were immensely varied, from herbivores to carnivores.  Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast genus that the dinosaurs encompassed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Extinction===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:800px-KT_boundary_054.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Badlands near [[Drumheller, Alberta]] where erosion has exposed the KT boundary.]]Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what we call the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]].  This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.  Although scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find, based on strong geological evidence, that the K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kevin O Pope, &amp;quot;Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary,&amp;quot; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Evidence of the dust that caused this long winter is still visible, though, as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Ibid.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The crater is also visible.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cambrian Life Explosion===&lt;br /&gt;
The extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals.  As a result of a new &amp;quot;vacancy&amp;quot; in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out.  What we now know as [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, &amp;quot;Life in the Universe,&amp;quot; viewable at http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Birds===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs.  This is cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, &amp;quot;New Dinosaur Discovered: T-Rex Cousin Had Feathers,&amp;quot; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs and Creation==&lt;br /&gt;
What follow are religious perspectives on dinosaurs, offered by organizations such as &amp;quot;Answers in Genesis,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Creation on the Web.&amp;quot;  Following any of the links associated with this section will lead to a treatment of the issue in line with Biblical literalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Jesus-on-dinosaur.jpg|thumb|A dinosaur]]&lt;br /&gt;
Some claim there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Creationism===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some [[Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'', 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; as a final addendum to the wonders God created, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of various dinosaurs were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp &amp;quot;Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?&amp;quot;], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp &amp;quot;Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp &amp;quot;Are dinosaurs alive today?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, even though none of the six billion people currently residing on the planet have seen them. It should be noted that none of these claims have been backed by any serious scientific research, and rely almost wholly either on the infallibility of the Bible, or on human speculations based to a greater or lesser degree upon the Biblical account. Ken Ham states the theory that Dinosaurs were killed during the great flood, buried in mud and then fossilized.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_04.html Ken Ham at PBS.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp &amp;quot;Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?&amp;quot;], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some reject this view, saying that behemoth was a hippopotamus and leviathan was a crocodile. There is a problem with this view, however, such as the fact that a hippo doesn't have a &amp;quot;tail like a cedar&amp;quot; and a crocodile does not accurately match the description of leviathan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=35430</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=35430"/>
		<updated>2007-03-14T19:24:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: Added source&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the  [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor).  Dinosaurs were a group of large [[reptiles]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The consensus among peer-reviewed science is that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (however [[birds]] are considered by scientists to be descended from early [[therapod]] dinosaurs).  Many Creationists dispute this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs through Science==&lt;br /&gt;
What follow are the perspectives on dinosaurs accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, through use of the [[scientific method]], and taught at the United States' major research universities.  Following any of the references in this section will lead to scientific treatment of the issue discussed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaur Speciation===&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaur species were immensely varied, from herbivores to carnivores.  Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast genus that the dinosaurs encompassed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Extinction===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:800px-KT_boundary_054.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Badlands near [[Drumheller, Alberta]] where erosion has exposed the KT boundary.]]Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what we call the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]].  This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.  Although scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find, based on strong geological evidence, that the K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kevin O Pope, &amp;quot;Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary,&amp;quot; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Evidence of the dust that caused this long winter is still visible, though, as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Ibid.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The crater is also visible.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cambrian Life Explosion===&lt;br /&gt;
The extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals.  As a result of a new &amp;quot;vacancy&amp;quot; in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out.  What we now know as [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, &amp;quot;Life in the Universe,&amp;quot; viewable at http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Birds===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs.  This is cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Geographic, &amp;quot;New Dinosaur Discovered: T-Rex Cousin Had Feathers,&amp;quot; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs and Creation==&lt;br /&gt;
What follow are religious perspectives on dinosaurs, offered by organizations such as &amp;quot;Answers in Genesis,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Creation on the Web.&amp;quot;  Following any of the links associated with this section will lead to a treatment of the issue in line with Biblical literalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Jesus-on-dinosaur.jpg|thumb|A dinosaur]]&lt;br /&gt;
Some claim there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur and dragon fossils to be found in China &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Creationism===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some [[Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'', 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; as a final addendum to the wonders God created, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of various dinosaurs were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp &amp;quot;Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?&amp;quot;], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp &amp;quot;Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp &amp;quot;Are dinosaurs alive today?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, even though none of the six billion people currently residing on the planet have seen them. It should be noted that none of these claims have been backed by any serious scientific research, and rely almost wholly either on the infallibility of the Bible, or on human speculations based to a greater or lesser degree upon the Biblical account. Ken Ham states the theory that Dinosaurs were killed during the great flood, buried in mud and then fossilized.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_04.html Ken Ham at PBS.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp &amp;quot;Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?&amp;quot;], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some reject this view, saying that behemoth was a hippopotamus and leviathan was a crocodile. There is a problem with this view, however, such as the fact that a hippo doesn't have a &amp;quot;tail like a cedar&amp;quot; and a crocodile does not accurately match the description of leviathan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=35397</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=35397"/>
		<updated>2007-03-14T19:16:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;How absurd!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'.  He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels.  The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a &amp;quot;strong anti-British bias&amp;quot; (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birds==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=28701</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=28701"/>
		<updated>2007-03-12T16:00:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: Dinosaurs weren't lizards. Changed 'large lizards' to 'large reptiles'&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the  [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot; (fututor).  Dinosaurs were a group of large [[reptiles]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (however [[birds]] are considered by scientists to be descended from early [[therapod]] dinosaurs).  They claim the [[fossil]] evidence supports this theory. Many Creationists dispute this, claiming that the dating methods used to judge the age of the fossils are not always precise and that there are gaps within the fossil record itself. However, no mainstream scientist supports th Creationist view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs, Evolution and Creation==&lt;br /&gt;
===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some claim there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is quite hard evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur and dragon fossils to be found in China. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Birds===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similiarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Creationism===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some [[Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'', 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; as a final addendum to the wonders God created, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of various dinosaurs were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp &amp;quot;Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?&amp;quot;], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp &amp;quot;Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp &amp;quot;Are dinosaurs alive today?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, even though none of the six billion people currently residing on the planet have seen them. It should be noted that none of these claims have been backed by any serious scientific research, and rely almost wholly on the infallibility of the Bible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs, although they could have been references to any large animal of the time&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp &amp;quot;Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?&amp;quot;], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; such as hippopotomi and crocodiles &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Elijah&amp;diff=26483</id>
		<title>User talk:Elijah</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Elijah&amp;diff=26483"/>
		<updated>2007-03-11T22:59:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Elijah&amp;diff=26339</id>
		<title>User talk:Elijah</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Elijah&amp;diff=26339"/>
		<updated>2007-03-11T21:51:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Thanks for fixing the grammar mistakes in the Dinosaurs article - I think you did a really good job cleaning up the article XD.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=26336</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=26336"/>
		<updated>2007-03-11T21:49:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: Deleted stuff about Carbon-14 dating (C-14 isn't used on dinos). Skimming over the article, the rest looks more or elss okay&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the  [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot;.  Dinosaurs were a group of large [[lizards]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (however [[birds]] are considered by scientists to be descended from early [[therapod]] dinosaurs).  They claim the [[fossil]] evidence supports this theory, although many Creationists dispute this, and claim that the dating methods used to judge the age of the fossils are not always precise and that there are gaps within the fossil records themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs, Evolution and Creation==&lt;br /&gt;
===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some claim there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur. However, it is unclear what discipline these scientists were trained in and, judging by their reports, it is most likely they were 17th century alchemists or sports scientists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This reported sighting coincided with the region's tourism promotion drive, aimed at Dungeons and Dragons fans worldwide. An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Since it is a pictorial representation produced by human beings, it has no validity as proof whatsoever, much like the [[Bible]]. The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; How this is relevant to this article is a matter of some mystery, but it has been included because it is a good read. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is quite hard evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland, where one of the best curry restaurants in the area can be found. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. This information, along with a hazy picture of a black shadow, was released as a joint venture with the Xinjiang department of tourism's dinosaur-like monster reported sightings. Early accounts describe St Columba driving away the dinosaur through prayer, lending even more credibility to the report. There are suggestions that Dinosaurs may have had a diabolical origin, indeed, their large teeth and frightening appearance would seem to support this theory, as evidenced by fossils found by paleontologists. There are claims they planted this evidence, though, since they were unemployed at the time. Evidence from China indicates that dinosaurs may have lived communally suggesting they were left wing, and thus ungodly. It is likely that the current population of China evolved from these dinosaurs, given their current political inclination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted, however, that none of these claims have been verified and neither has the information provided in this article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existance of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by eroision were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaurs fossils to be found in China. I am high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Birds===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similiarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs. While some scientists are a cog in the machine of liberal propaganda and not to believed (evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, to name but a few) creationists of course believe these, since they support the theories they believe in. One has merely to look at a pigeon in the street for the evidence to be quite clear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Creationism===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some [[Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'', 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; as a final addendum to the wonders God created, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of various dinosaurs were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp &amp;quot;Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?&amp;quot;], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp &amp;quot;Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp &amp;quot;Are dinosaurs alive today?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, even though none of the six billion people currently residing on the planet have seen them, except for some bored housewives in Arizona whose plastic surgeons refuse to inject more silicone into their lips, thus forcing them to find alternate ways of seeking attention and passing the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs, although they could have been references to anything large, such as the Egyptian pyramids, Jesus' ego, a huge hailstone that still has not melted despite having fallen in one of the hottest places on Earth, or a squid caught by Yemeni fishermen while illegally fishing off the coast of Bahrain. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp &amp;quot;Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?&amp;quot;], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other biblical scholars who are not reported to enjoy recreational drugs contend that the terms respectively refer to hippopotomi and crocodiles &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=25767</id>
		<title>Talk:Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur&amp;diff=25767"/>
		<updated>2007-03-11T17:01:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;How absurd!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What are &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;?  Is there another kind of &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot;?  Is evolutionist a word?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why is the word &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; in inverted commas in the second sentence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot; are not?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does it say that the &amp;quot;Creation scientists&amp;quot; have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the &amp;quot;Old-Earth Evolutionists&amp;quot;? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will be back to do some editing.   --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism &amp;quot;inverted commas&amp;quot; instead of the proper American &amp;quot;quotation marks&amp;quot;. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And &amp;quot;proper American&amp;quot;? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalized improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops.  Did it again.  I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves.  I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtesy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Christian Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot; -- for whom those sources do speak -- not &amp;quot;all Christians&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;most Christians&amp;quot;. This was altered to &amp;quot;Creationists&amp;quot; in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to &amp;quot;some Christians&amp;quot;, then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called &amp;quot;Creation Scientists&amp;quot;. They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny.  Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catholic links deleted ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named &amp;quot;Aschlafly&amp;quot; who deleted them with the comment &amp;quot;deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution&amp;quot; and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.&lt;br /&gt;
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism.  Is this conservapedia actually a &amp;quot;Southernbaptistapedia&amp;quot;?  I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edit by Sureal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=25760</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=25760"/>
		<updated>2007-03-11T16:56:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: Reverted, but added in a bit about gaps in fossil record.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the  [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot;.  Dinosaurs were a group of large [[lizards]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (however [[birds]] are considered by scientists to be descended from early [[therapod]] dinosaurs).  They claim the [[fossil]] evidence supports this theory, although many Creationists dispute this, and claim that the dating methods used to judge the age of the fossils are not always precise, and that there are large gaps within the fossil record itself. Despite this, palaeontologists insist that their use of multiple techniques for dating (and the cross-over the results show) indicate some level of accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs, Evolution and Creation==&lt;br /&gt;
===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some claim there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie), a large Monster living in the Scotish lake Loch Ness. People, who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. Early accounts describe St Columba driving away the dinosaur through prayer, lending even more credibility to the report. This suggests that Dinosaurs may have had a diabolical origin, indeed, their large teeth and frightening appearance would seem to support this theory. Evidence from China indicates that Dinosaurs may have lived communally suggesting they were left wing, and thus ungodly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted, however, that none of these claims have been verified. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existance of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by eroision were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaurs fossils to be found in China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Birds===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similiarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Creationism===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some [[Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'', 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of various dinosaur [[baramin]]s were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp &amp;quot;Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?&amp;quot;], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp &amp;quot;Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp &amp;quot;Are dinosaurs alive today?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp &amp;quot;Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?&amp;quot;], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other biblical scholars contend that the terms respectively refer to hippopotomi and crocodiles &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=25712</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=25712"/>
		<updated>2007-03-11T16:03:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the  [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot;.  Dinosaurs were a group of large [[lizards]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (however [[birds]] are considered by scientists to be descended from early [[therapod]] dinosaurs).  They claim the [[fossil]] evidence supports this theory, although many Creationists dispute this, and claim that the dating methods used to judge the age of the fossils are not always precise. Despite this, palaeontologists insist that their use of multiple techniques for dating (and the cross-over the results show) indicate some level of accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs, Evolution and Creation==&lt;br /&gt;
===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some claim there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie), a large Monster living in the Scotish lake Loch Ness. People, who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. Early accounts describe St Columba driving away the dinosaur through prayer, lending even more credibility to the report. This suggests that Dinosaurs may have had a diabolical origin, indeed, their large teeth and frightening appearance would seem to support this theory. Evidence from China indicates that Dinosaurs may have lived communally suggesting they were left wing, and thus ungodly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted, however, that none of these claims have been verified. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existance of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by eroision were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaurs fossils to be found in China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Birds===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similiarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Creationism===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some [[Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'', 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of various dinosaur [[baramin]]s were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp &amp;quot;Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?&amp;quot;], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp &amp;quot;Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp &amp;quot;Are dinosaurs alive today?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp &amp;quot;Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?&amp;quot;], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other biblical scholars contend that the terms respectively refer to hippopotomi and crocodiles &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=25710</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=25710"/>
		<updated>2007-03-11T16:02:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the  [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot;.  Dinosaurs were a group of large [[lizards]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (however [[birds]] are considered by scientists to be descended from early [[therapod]] dinosaurs).  They claim the [[fossil]] evidence supports this theory, although many Creationists dispute this, and claim that the dating methods used to judge the age of the fossils are not always precise. Despite this, palaeontologists insist that their use of multiple techniques for dating (and the cross-over the results show) indicate some level of accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs, Evolution and Creation==&lt;br /&gt;
===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some claim there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie), a large Monster living in the Scotish lake Loch Ness. People, who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. Early accounts describe St Columba driving away the dinosaur through prayer, lending even more credibility to the report. This suggests that Dinosaurs may have had a diabolical origin, indeed, their large teeth and frightening appearance would seem to support this theory. Evidence from China indicates that Dinosaurs may have lived communally suggesting they were left wing, and thus ungodly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted, however, that none of these claims have been verified. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existance of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by eroision were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaurs fossils to be found in China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Birds===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similiarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs and Creationism==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some [[Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'', 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of various dinosaur [[baramin]]s were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp &amp;quot;Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?&amp;quot;], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp &amp;quot;Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp &amp;quot;Are dinosaurs alive today?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp &amp;quot;Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?&amp;quot;], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other biblical scholars contend that the terms respectively refer to hippopotomi and crocodiles &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=25709</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=25709"/>
		<updated>2007-03-11T16:01:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sureal: Tried to clean it up a bit, and add a bit more balance. Still lacking (A LOT) in actual information on dinosaurs&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the  [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot;.  Dinosaurs were a group of large [[lizards]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (however [[birds]] are considered by scientists to be descended from early [[therapod]] dinosaurs).  They claim the [[fossil]] evidence supports this theory, although many Creationists dispute this, and claim that the dating methods used to judge the age of the fossils are not always precise. Despite this, palaeontologists insist that their use of multiple techniques for dating (and the cross-over the results show) indicate some level of accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some claim there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie), a large Monster living in the Scotish lake Loch Ness. People, who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. Early accounts describe St Columba driving away the dinosaur through prayer, lending even more credibility to the report. This suggests that Dinosaurs may have had a diabolical origin, indeed, their large teeth and frightening appearance would seem to support this theory. Evidence from China indicates that Dinosaurs may have lived communally suggesting they were left wing, and thus ungodly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It should be noted, however, that none of these claims have been verified. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existance of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by eroision were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaurs fossils to be found in China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Dinosaurs and Birds===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similiarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaurs and Creationism==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some [[Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'', 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of various dinosaur [[baramin]]s were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp &amp;quot;Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?&amp;quot;], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp &amp;quot;Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp &amp;quot;Are dinosaurs alive today?&amp;quot;], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]]  and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp &amp;quot;Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?&amp;quot;], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other biblical scholars contend that the terms respectively refer to hippopotomi and crocodiles &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sureal</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>