« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 61   Go Down

James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1811 Replies
  • 379685 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #930 on: September 23, 2010, 06:18:58 PM »
Quote from: James on September 23, 2010, 02:58:22 PM
You are the one posting about my dreams, not me. We should get back to the topic at hand, which is whether or not whales evolved from wolves.

Whales did not evolve from wolves.  However, wolves and whales did have a common ancestor that was neither wolf nor whale.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #931 on: September 23, 2010, 06:34:56 PM »
Quote from: James on September 23, 2010, 02:58:22 PM
You are the one posting about my dreams, not me. We should get back to the topic at hand, which is whether or not whales evolved from wolves.
You have posted about your dreams and used them as evidence. I've already challenged you to provide any support for your outlandish claim that whales evolved from ancient wolves. I renew the challenge. Perhaps you'll dream up an answer overnight.
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #932 on: September 23, 2010, 06:36:00 PM »
I've noticed James ignored the part where I pointed out his lie.
Logged
Quote from: Thork on April 02, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #933 on: September 23, 2010, 06:40:26 PM »
Quote from: General Disarray on September 23, 2010, 06:36:00 PM
I've noticed James ignored the part where I pointed out his lie.
True. He seems to shy away for such portents of reality, like a vampire from sunlight. I guess the Truth pains him.
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
?

Ikn0Witall

  • 4
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #934 on: November 11, 2010, 01:08:14 PM »
Saying that dinosaurs exist is like saying unicorns exist just a bunch of hogwash
Logged
*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3555
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #935 on: November 11, 2010, 02:21:07 PM »
Quote from: Ikn0Witall on November 11, 2010, 01:08:14 PM
Saying that dinosaurs exist is like saying unicorns exist just a bunch of hogwash

I searched the internet on your unicorn claim and could not find evidence of contemporary examples but there are certain anomalies existent where that claim is made.  There are, however, examples of contemporary dinosaurs (if you will) on the net and ITT.   

Logged
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #936 on: November 11, 2010, 02:27:52 PM »
Quote from: gotham on November 11, 2010, 02:21:07 PM
Quote from: Ikn0Witall on November 11, 2010, 01:08:14 PM
Saying that dinosaurs exist is like saying unicorns exist just a bunch of hogwash

I searched the internet on your unicorn claim and could not find evidence of contemporary examples but there are certain anomalies existent where that claim is made.  There are, however, examples of contemporary dinosaurs (if you will) on the net and ITT.   


That's right. If you take the non-colloquial use of the term 'dinosaurs', you'll find that loophole. With the same loophole, I call gotham a lungfish. <yawn>
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #937 on: November 11, 2010, 04:56:26 PM »
Quote from: ClockTower on November 11, 2010, 02:27:52 PM
That's right. If you take the non-colloquial use of the term 'dinosaurs', you'll find that loophole.

God forbid we are scientific at the FES.
Logged
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #938 on: November 11, 2010, 05:38:12 PM »
"Contemporary dinosaurs"?
Logged
*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3555
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #939 on: November 11, 2010, 05:52:35 PM »
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 11, 2010, 05:38:12 PM
"Contemporary dinosaurs"?

Contemporary dinosaurs (if you will)...only to differentiate them from extinct dinosaurs.
Logged
?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #940 on: November 12, 2010, 03:44:04 AM »
You realise 'dinosaur' is Latin for 'extinct lizard', right?
Logged
*

spanner34.5

  • 4642
  • feck arse drink
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #941 on: November 12, 2010, 04:10:52 AM »
Quote from: Eddy Baby on November 12, 2010, 03:44:04 AM
You realise 'dinosaur' is Latin for 'extinct lizard', right?
The Latin translation of extinct lizard becomes Lacerta extincta.
Logged
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #942 on: November 12, 2010, 05:20:25 AM »
Quote from: Eddy Baby on November 12, 2010, 03:44:04 AM
You realise 'dinosaur' is Latin for 'extinct lizard', right?
No, 'dinosaur' is Greek for 'terrible (dire) lizard'.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 05:27:47 AM by ClockTower »
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #943 on: November 12, 2010, 07:21:50 AM »
It doesn't matter what the etymology of the word is; all the dinosaurs are extinct.  Reptiles today may be related to dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them dinosaurs.  Is a house cat a "contemporary sabre-toothed tiger"?  Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
Logged
*

spanner34.5

  • 4642
  • feck arse drink
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #944 on: November 12, 2010, 07:29:32 AM »
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:21:50 AM
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.
Logged
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #945 on: November 12, 2010, 07:34:14 AM »
Quote from: spanner34.5 on November 12, 2010, 07:29:32 AM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:21:50 AM
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.

That is a ridiculous theory.
Logged
?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #946 on: November 12, 2010, 07:37:37 AM »
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:34:14 AM
Quote from: spanner34.5 on November 12, 2010, 07:29:32 AM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:21:50 AM
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.

That is a ridiculous theory.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
Logged
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #947 on: November 12, 2010, 08:25:56 AM »
Quote from: sillyrob on November 12, 2010, 07:37:37 AM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:34:14 AM
Quote from: spanner34.5 on November 12, 2010, 07:29:32 AM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:21:50 AM
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.

That is a ridiculous theory.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans

Damn it!  I hate being proven wrong.
Logged
*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #948 on: November 12, 2010, 08:28:28 AM »
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 08:25:56 AM
Quote from: sillyrob on November 12, 2010, 07:37:37 AM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:34:14 AM
Quote from: spanner34.5 on November 12, 2010, 07:29:32 AM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:21:50 AM
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.

That is a ridiculous theory.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans

Damn it!  I hate being proven wrong.
That's cause you're dumb and you post dumb things.
Logged
*

spanner34.5

  • 4642
  • feck arse drink
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #949 on: November 12, 2010, 08:32:08 AM »
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 08:25:56 AM
Quote from: sillyrob on November 12, 2010, 07:37:37 AM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:34:14 AM
Quote from: spanner34.5 on November 12, 2010, 07:29:32 AM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:21:50 AM
Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?
There is a theory out there that Neanderthals were absorbed into our gene pool by interbreeding and never became extinct as such..So yes.

That is a ridiculous theory.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans

Damn it!  I hate being proven wrong.
I don't think anything has been proven, still just a strong theory.
Logged
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #950 on: November 12, 2010, 09:09:47 AM »
They told me the exact opposite when I was in school.  Damn these new theories.
Logged
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #951 on: November 12, 2010, 02:20:10 PM »
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 12, 2010, 07:21:50 AM
It doesn't matter what the etymology of the word is; all the dinosaurs are extinct.  Reptiles today may be related to dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them dinosaurs.  Is a house cat a "contemporary sabre-toothed tiger"?  Is a human being a "contemporary Neanderthal"?

Nobody is claiming that modern reptiles are dinosaurs - they aren't. Modern birds are dinosaurs.

Quote from: Ikn0Witall on November 11, 2010, 01:08:14 PM
Saying that dinosaurs exist is like saying unicorns exist just a bunch of hogwash

A rhinoceros is a species of unicorn. Do you claim that the rhinoceros does not exist?
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #952 on: November 12, 2010, 03:45:19 PM »
Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 02:20:10 PM
Nobody is claiming that modern reptiles are dinosaurs - they aren't. Modern birds are dinosaurs.

The tree of life that gives itself a reach around?

Tell us more James/
Logged
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #953 on: November 12, 2010, 04:21:26 PM »
Avians are direct descendants of dromaeosaurids. There is no genealogical "reach around".
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #954 on: November 12, 2010, 05:14:32 PM »
Wait, rhinos are a breed of unicorn? Please explain more. Also, check your facts when it comes to whales evolving from wolves, I think you'll find yourself wrong. I believe it was a "wolf sized carnivore" with a skull similar to a whale that they found. You should spend more time on the anti-moon and the sun putting fires out.
Logged
?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #955 on: November 12, 2010, 05:38:55 PM »
Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 04:21:26 PM
Avians are direct descendants of dromaeosaurids. There is no genealogical "reach around".

Direct descendent /= the same.

Even for you James this fail is epic. Any more?
Logged
?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #956 on: November 12, 2010, 06:31:35 PM »
Question:
As far as I know, and I might be wrong, White sharks and Crocodiles haven't evolved much in the last thousand years, could we say that at least crocodiles are dinosaurs?
Logged
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #957 on: November 12, 2010, 06:39:19 PM »
No, they are crocodiles and sharks! Why would they be dinosaurs?
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #958 on: November 12, 2010, 06:40:32 PM »
Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 06:39:19 PM
No, they are crocodiles and sharks! Why would they be dinosaurs?
I'm going to go with the claim that James evolved from crocodiles and sharks.
Logged
?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #959 on: November 12, 2010, 06:49:25 PM »
Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 06:39:19 PM
No, they are crocodiles and sharks! Why would they be dinosaurs?

K, forget the sharks, let's keep with the crocodiles, they have been existing since the time of the dinosaurs as we all understand it, only that they were bigger, or had larger mouths, and during all this time, they have just shrinked, but their anatomy is the same that back then. And they are reptiles, cold blood, carnivores... So I think that they are dinosaurs that have survived until our days.
Or do they just don't fit into the definition of "dinosaur"? I think they do. If not I'd like to read why.
I would look for it myself, but it's 3:50 in the night, I just came from a party and I'm going to sleep, so I'll be glad to read about it tomorrow. Good night!
Logged
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 61   Go Up
« previous next »