Changes

User talk:TerryH (view source)

Revision as of 01:45, July 25, 2007

1,368 bytes added , 01:45, July 25, 2007

Birds

Line 336: Line 336:

:::Ah, nevermind... I see somebody fixed it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:39, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::::I fixed it--by reconnecting the double redirects, and ''then'' by removing the Main Page link from the text of Conservapedia:Deletedpage. Now the only way those pages show up are in the dead-end page list.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

+

== Birds ==

+

Wikipedia labels birds as reptiles, or at least they say that since birds supposedly evolved from "dinosaurs", that they count as reptiles. Now, I don't know about you but I think that's absolute BS. But one thing: what about all these China fossils they keep finding of dinosaurs with "branching integuments"? I hypothesize that many of these are probably just large birds that have been mistaken for dinosaurs with feathers. Come to think of it, it may be time for a redefining of the word "dinosaur". Dinosaurs are usually referring to large, reptilian animals, but now they think that some were feathered?? The fossils they find bear so much resemblence to birds that now many evolutionists are disputing whether or not they ''are'' true birds. Me, I think they're birds. The deinonychus is usually supposed to be a dinosaur, but what are the little filaments that are found on the fossils? Have deinonychus fossils been found anywhere else, without featheres? What would this mean? Probably, that either those fossils have been less well-preserved, or that the fossils in China are fakes, which is what ''I'' think. Of course, deinonychus may have been a large, ostrich-like animal. What do you think? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Scorpion

414

edits