Talk:Dinosaur

Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1

Note: an alternative version of this article is currently being written here. This is not an attempt to usurp Conservative's views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --Hojimachong^talk

Alternative version of the article

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 "history of dinosaur paleontology" sections match). The other main change is the introduction, where the alternative version states matter-of-factly that the evolutionary view is based on "overwhelming scientific evidence" (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. Philip J. Rayment 01:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I am mostly happy with the current article. Given the ed staff, it's the best it'll ever get.-AmesG_yo! 02:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's Have this "Evolutionary" Debate Here & Now

Conservative, you have never rebutted my contention that "evolutionary," 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 "evolutionary biology," 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 "evolutionary" except where appropriate. -AmesG_yo! 01:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what AmesG said regarding material he posted in regards to it's veracity:

"I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight." [1]

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?

I say we cannot afford to babysit AmesG anymore. Conservative 01:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Inappropriate edit here. See my reply on Andy's page. Stick to the point.-AmesG_yo! 01:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

"Creationary"

Conservative, that you've never heard the word "creationary" 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 "creationary" is just following that pattern.

"Creationary" is also a good balance to "evolutionary"; if the latter is acceptable, why not the former? At least it provides for consistency.

And it has in fact been in use for quite some time, and was included in a dictionary nearly 50 years ago. Please read here for more information, including why "creationist" is not the best word to use where an adjective is required.

Philip J. Rayment 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm down with that compromise.-AmesG_yo! 01:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we should not use the word "creationary" 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! Conservative 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

AmesG, I don't follow. I suspect that you were objecting to the term "evolutionary", but that you'd be happy if both "evolutionary" and "creationary" are used. Is that correct? Philip J. Rayment 01:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

That's right. If both sides sound ridiculous, no problem.-AmesG_yo! 01:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The terms may be uncommon, but I fail to see how they are, or make the topic sound, ridiculous. Philip J. Rayment 02:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Then I must have misspoken. Let's use them both.-AmesG_yo! 02:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Snipping apparent joke

However, a certain "Dr. Karl Pilkington", has used numerous reliable paleontological sources, such as "1 million years BC", by the eminent social philosopher Racquel Welch, to deduce that since dinosaurs and humans have once lived, there must be "some cross over point" where both roamed the Earth. This standpoint has gained a large amount of publicity, and is now taken more seriously than accepted extinction theory.

One Million Years BC is a 1966 science fiction movie, and Raquel Welch was the "curvy" actress who starred in it. Karl Pilkington produces a radio show and has his own Wiki. Sounds like someone was having fun. Dpbsmith 16:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK

Let's discuss this:

• 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.

Has anyone in the last 100 years report seeing a dinosaur? Anyone?

• The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "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."

This contradicts the section title.

• Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.[25] World Book Encyclopedia says, "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."[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.

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.

• Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

Again, contradicts section title.

• Among those who believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, one popular theory is that it is a living plesiosaur.

Has anyone seen that?Sterile 13:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your claim that two of those points "contradict the section title". The section title is "Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting", 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?).

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.

By the way, I smiled at your reference to "evil British punctunation".

Philip J. Rayment 19:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

You are suggesting that the cyclops existed? When a potentially simpler answer is "the ancient Greeks saw an elephant skull[2]?" You can have cultural references to something without it existing (dragons, unicorns, boogie man, fairies, etc...) --Mtur 19:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

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. Philip J. Rayment 23:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

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. Sureal 10:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)