Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.167.11.101 (talk) at 09:23, 14 March 2007 (→Fishy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Paranormal Disambig‑class

This disambiguation page falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal Disambig This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Dinosaurs Disambig‑class

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs Disambig This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Mythology Disambig‑class

This disambiguation page is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Disambig This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Cryptozoology Disambig‑class

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the disambiguation page attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids Disambig This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Fishy

It's got a reference, but something still smells fishy to me. Enochlau 01:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what you'd consider "fishy". Living dinosaurs are a part of cryptozoology ... this information should not be taken as fact, same applies to bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. DaemonDivinus 01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be made clear. When I first read it, it seemed like the writer was trying to imply that they were a real possibility. Enochlau 02:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It could be a real possibility, just not fact. I don't see the problem. The article shouldn't be written stating it isn't a real possibility at all, because it should remain neutral.

Disproof of evolution?

Can someone explain how living dinosaurs could be used to disprove evolution? Because that statement doesn't make much sense to me. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't disprove evolution, thus the wording "presumed disproof". Those who would presume to disprove evolution would say that contemporary dinosaurs "prove" that all species were created 6,000 years ago in their current forms. Of course, that wouldn't account for the geological record or why other dinosaur-era species living today don't disprove evolution. Coyoty 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The arguments against dinosaur survival are legion?

Is this statement really necessary? It seems somewhat biased to claim there are many arguments against dinosaur survival, then spend the entire paragraph describing only one argument (well, two, really, but most of the paragraph deals with the climate change argument). Why not list more arguments rather than just saying there's lots of arguments?

Don Dueck 08:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Living species today Bold textdo disprove evolutionBold text. For example, how could a crocodile which evolutionist believe lived in the Trisurric period survive but not the dinosaurs. If there was a natural disaster that destroyed the dinosaurs, how is it that crocodiles and turtles and other creatures that lived during that time survive? I can understand small creatures hiding underground, but I mean big crocodiles and turtles. The disaster would affect them as well as the dinosaurs. If the disaster caused famine, it might kill the herbivores (but it doesn't explain why other plant eating animals survive) but how would it kill the carnivores? Sure there may not be as much big dinosaurs around, but they can still eat other creatures during this period. The main point I am trying to point out is why you guys are biased on the view of evoulution but will not except another view. When you compare evoulution to another view, evoultion will look stupid. I would't doubt if dinosaurs are still alive in the Congo (callled chipweke) or in South America (Amazon was said to have some sigthings of recent footprints and drawings on inca stones) or relatives in freshwater lakes (like Scotland). We all need to be more open to facts than to hold on the the belief of evolution. User:209.50.141.75

OK here goes, Mr Too-shy-to-sign: 1. Living fossils do not disprove evolution. There are many creatures that survived the mesozoic, such as crocodiles, conifers, jellyfish and ants. (I could go on); yet species have evolved within these groups over the millions of years since they arose. For instance, you state that the "crocodile" survived - but there are many species of crocodilian, in three families. None of the currently surviving species are more than a few million years old; the order has been evolving ever since it began. the same is true of, for instance, birds, which have changed greatly since they first appeared in the Cretaceous period.

2. When putting up an argument about geological time, try spelling "Triassic" properly for a start. it would show that you've been doing some reading.

3. What is this alternive to evolution thatyou propose? The only alternative that I've seen proposed is that God created life as it stands now - which has no evidence to support it except for such wilfully misinterpreted evidence as the Paluxy tracks.

4. If surviving dinosaurs disprove evolution, why were there different genera of dinosaur in each period within the Mesozoic, and why were there no dinosaurs before? Totnesmartin 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent reply. But if you really want to get your blood going, try out any one of the myriad of Evolution articles. Orangemarlin 03:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of the dinosaurs

Someone just questioned the notability of Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu. perhaps it could have a paragraph here if that article gets deleted. Totnesmartin 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge tags

I just placed merge tags on this article and Living dinosaurs in South America. It really seems to me like they ought to be one article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

if there's an article for South America, there should be one for each continent - or just have sections for each continent here. Totnesmartin 16:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave the merge tags up for, say, a week, and if there are no objections then I'll go ahead and make Living dinosaurs in South America into a subsection on this article and redirect. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

This sentence was just deleted by somebone without explanation. It's here now if anyone wants to re-insert or discuss.

"Furthermore, young earth creationists would still have to contend with geological reasons for believing in an old earth."

Totnesmartin 15:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-insert it. It might help to wiki-link to said geological argument too. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Indian said to some investigator...

Fellows: I don't think we should include every story in this article. A hundred of people can say to any "investigator" anything... and including a bunch of stories of that calibre in this article only gives the subject credit that is has not on its own.--Damifb 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The story has to be notable and at least reasonably verifiable. Orangemarlin 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemarlin.

--Damifb 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wrote that section! It was previously a separate article called "Living dinosaurs in South America", but it was unfortunately later merged with this article. Danielos2 07:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

These stories are notable and verifiable, they get repeated again and again in every cryptozoology book that brings up dinosaurs. Remember, from WP:V, that truth and verifiability are two different things. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disambig-Class paranormal pages
• NA-importance paranormal pages
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• Disambig-Class dinosaurs pages
• NA-importance dinosaurs pages
• WikiProject Dinosaurs articles
• Disambig-Class Mythology pages
• NA-importance Mythology pages
• Disambig-Class Cryptids pages
• NA-importance Cryptids pages
• WikiProject Cryptozoology articles