5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 233:
Line 233: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→thanks!: this is a terrible article
Oh, uh, well, I don't know how that follows from that evidence. I just don't like the one sentence about the extinct species, because it is there is no valid conclusion by logic (like syllogism, if you know what that is) to conclude anything about dinosaurs from the other "previously thought of as extinct" species. There's no connect between alive or dead squirrels and dinosaurs. The empirical evidence (by sightings) is as good as the observers credibility, but there is no logical conclusion to be made about dinosaurs from the info. I don't know how to "discount" the fossil record from the data given. (Sorry!) I would still rather rid of the extinct species sentence. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh, uh, well, I don't know how that follows from that evidence. I just don't like the one sentence about the extinct species, because it is there is no valid conclusion by logic (like syllogism, if you know what that is) to conclude anything about dinosaurs from the other "previously thought of as extinct" species. There's no connect between alive or dead squirrels and dinosaurs. The empirical evidence (by sightings) is as good as the observers credibility, but there is no logical conclusion to be made about dinosaurs from the info. I don't know how to "discount" the fossil record from the data given. (Sorry!) I would still rather rid of the extinct species sentence. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
==Joke article?==
Offence is not meant to the creator(s) of this article, but is it a joke, or is it meant as a Straw Man argument ''for'' evolution? Can't we do better than this article? The title of this article is '''Dinosaur''', but aside from the first two sentences, it's an article refuting evolution, and not really about dinosaurs at all.
For example, in an article about dinosaurs, you'd expect there to be a mention of, you know, individual types of dinosaurs or something. The animals mentioned in this article are:
*Triceratops (a dinosaur)
*Beetle (not)
*Medusa (not)
*Cat (not)
*Behemoth (maybe, if you believe in YEC)
*Leviathan (maybe, if you believe in YEC)
*Loch Ness Monster (please God, no)
*Plesiosaur (not)
*Mokele-member (please God, no)
*Thunderbird (not)
*Pterosaur (not)
*Dragons (not)
*Coelacanth (not)
*T-rex (in footnote only)
This article is so ''soooo'' bad it makes me embarassed to be a Christian. Why do the Loch Ness Monster, dragons, and other mythical beasts have to be discussed in this article, while ''genuine'' types of dinosaurs aren't even mentioned? I'd love to be able to send my children to Conservapedia, but articles like this are an absolute train wreck. I really want to cry. [[User:HolierThanThou|HolierThanThou]] 21:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)