Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,747 Year: 4,004/9,624 Month: 875/974 Week: 202/286 Day: 9/109 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Dinosaurs live with man?
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 48 of 373 (663449)
05-24-2012 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-18-2012 3:55 AM


maybe
I guess its possible.
I think we still have some, they are called Crocodilians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-18-2012 3:55 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by caffeine, posted 05-25-2012 3:09 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 12:20 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2012 4:57 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 56 by 1.61803, posted 05-29-2012 6:30 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 52 of 373 (663560)
05-25-2012 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
05-25-2012 12:20 PM


Re: maybe
Taq writes:
It would have been more accurate to say "they are called birds", but that is neither here nor there.
you got me. I am an earth science guy.
Taq writes:
You do bring up a bigger point. It is indeed possible that some (non-avian) dinosaurs made it into the modern age. We may stumble upon a few surviving species on a remote island, for example. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires dinosaurs to be extinct. Nothing. In fact, I find it kind of strange that we don't see any dinosaurs today. Even the ancient monotreme is still represented by 2 species: the platypus and the echidna.
Does the Tuatara of New Zealand qualify?
What we are arguing against is the implication that radiometric dating is not accurate. Obviously, creationists are not arguing that there may be some isolated island that still houses a few species which is why they are not seen in the fossil record for the past 65 million years. What they are trying to argue is that the Earth is 6-10,000 years old, therefore man and the dinosaurs found in the fossil record roamed the Earth together.
oh, well that is just ludicrous. I was more interested in the chance of finding a lost or relic species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 12:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 12:59 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2012 9:35 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 57 of 373 (664197)
05-29-2012 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by 1.61803
05-29-2012 6:30 PM


Re: maybe
dang dude. do you chase down everyone that gives you a jeer? (flashback to Jay and Silent Bob strikes back), lol.
that was like a week ago.
I think you are referring to my negative "jeer" about post :#49
where your whole post was:
"Well this thread has been thoroughly trounced."
to be honest i thought you were the one flinging shit. you were definitely beating a dead horse, and it was a rather off topic, unnecessary, and immature post. You are like that guy that waits for someone to get beat up and then afterwards says "dang you just got beat up". It seemed really trollish, and uncalled for so i gave it a negative.
Now had you participated in the thread prior to just posting to talk shit, i probably would not have done anything, heck if i'm winning (almost never) i gloat sometimes, i may even give you a plus for a great retort with a snarky in your face comeback (see: Dr. Adequate, Taq, Catholic Scientist. or Onifre);
but you did nothing but come on here, choose the winning side, and talk smack like a you were taunting someone who was not doing well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by 1.61803, posted 05-29-2012 6:30 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 66 of 373 (664247)
05-30-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by arachnophilia
05-29-2012 9:35 PM


Re: maybe
so, i'm not really sure that you actually understand what a dinosaur is.
BUSTED!
you totally got me. I didn't really know what a dinosaur was.
thanks.
recognize this guy from jurassic park? yeah, i didn't think so. that's velociraptor (late cretaceous, one of the last dinosaurs). science tells us that they had quill barbs on their arms. that means wings. they are skeletally very similar to the another dinosaur you might have heard of: archaeopteryx. in fact, they are so similar that seems that archaeopteryx (the first bird) was a basal (early) dromaeosaur (the family that includes velociraptor). they're sort of like birds' nephews.
it's... relatively hard to find an accurate reconstruction of a dinosaur like velociraptor on the internet. the shape seen in the movies has taken over the popular imagination. but if you saw a real one, you'd think it was a strange kind of bird that had teeth instead of a beak. in fact, that description would be closer to being accurate than thinking a tuatara was a dinosaur. small theropods (including velociraptor) would look like fluffy birds. larger theropods would look like ostriches.
Your 2nd picture didn't come in, but i get this one. I find myself nerding out on this one all the time. Last week we were playing Darksun, and some monsters attacked and the DM described the monsters as "looking like a velociraptor"; i said which version the hollywood version or the scientist version. of course he had no clue what i meant. I said wikipedia it on your iPad and he was shocked they had feathers. it was funny, because it wasn't what he meant at all.
off topic: what is this?
אָרַח
Path?
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2012 9:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 1:31 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 71 of 373 (664272)
05-30-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by arachnophilia
05-30-2012 1:31 PM


Re: maybe
they should have a full set of fluffy, downy feathers that hide the contours of their bodies, sort of like modern birds do. we're just so set on seeing that sleek, naked-lizard that even the feathered drawings come across the same way.
it takes some time I'm sure to get all the old pictures out of everyone memory and filled with the new ones.
what I learned from you and Dr. Adequate (YEAH I SAID IT!!!!!), was more what dinosaurs were, that there was a leg structure and that I had to read more. Honestly I just assumed all the reptiles from 200+ million to 50 million years ago (approx. timeline) were Dinosaurs, I really never stopped to see what the classification was.
I'm just glad you were informative about it instead of mocking me calling me stupid and then moving on, but then again you probably aren't from Minnesota or Wisconsin are you?
thinking too literally. or maybe, not literally enough. it's a name from the bible, and it's pronounced "arach".
nope still not thinking. I just took it to the Israeli translator down the hall and asked him. he said it sorta meant "path", that it didn't really translate and it depended on the context, but based on what he saw he thought it meant "path."
lemme go back there and bug him again, I wanna know what it means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 1:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 8:47 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 83 of 373 (664352)
05-31-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by arachnophilia
05-30-2012 8:47 PM


Re: maybe
אָרַח writes:
out of curiosity, where did you get that impression?
Not really sure. I feel that male children in USA love dinosaurs, I know I had plenty of very illustrated kid’s books on Dinosaurs, and even had Dinosaur wallpaper in my room. For me this time period was the 1980s.
but your misconceptions aren't too far away from the way dinosaurs were thought of 100 years ago. and without, you know really studying the subject, one might be inclined to make the same kinds of classification errors...
I just never really gave it much thought after middle school. For me dinosaur = relatively large reptiles that lived millions of years ago, and went extinct in the K-T extinction event sixty-something million years ago. There were all kinds of Dinosaurs, some flew, some were aquatic, some were carnivorous, and some were herbivores. I think due to the common knowledge of them and the huge amount of press they get I was under the impression that 100 million years ago everything was a dinosaur. You don’t hear much about the other creatures of the time and when you do they are still in the book titled Dinosaurs of the Cretaceous, or I had a book about old animals that started with Eryops (300 mya) and moved through the evolutionary line to Triceratops (65mya) and the book was a book about dinosaurs. It fostered a childhood interest in something besides He-Man and GI-Joe, and I loved going to the museum of natural history to see the Dinosaur exhibits, and fossils, but I never really gave it much thought. I heard that Crocodilians have been around since the time of the dinosaurs, and I guess I assumed they were them. It could be me, but the information given at museums and in these coffee table and kid’s books is somewhat misleading (not on evolution, that seemed a given since I could read).
nope. but there's little point in mocking someone for something they just haven't learned. i follow paleontology from my armchair (i'm not a scientist) because i find the subject of dinosaur evolution fascinating, and frankly, because i just never grew out of it from when i was a kid. i think it's exciting, and interesting, and i love learning new things so i imagine others probably would too.
I can understand that. I am more an armchair earth science guy (geomorphology, hydrology, Orogenesis/plate tectonics). Though when it comes to evolution I am much more interested in Human evolution. I like cavemen.
can we bicker less, and intelligently converse more?
We can it’s just difficult due to the large amount of trolls here. Best bet is not to engage them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 8:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by caffeine, posted 05-31-2012 11:56 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2012 12:36 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 88 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 90 of 373 (664701)
06-04-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by arachnophilia
05-31-2012 1:30 PM


general reply
this is a general reply because Caffeine, Dr. Adequate and Arachnophillia, are all pretty much on the same page and my reply is to all of them.
caffeine writes:
I think this sort of misconception is common, and is a result of marketing really. It's because the name 'dinosaur' has such name recognition - that's what sells. You want to write some popular about aetosaurs, or seymouriamorphs, or whatnot, then it won't get much attention, since nobody knows what an aetosaur or seymouriamorph is. What sells is dinosaurs; so you call your book:
arachnophillia writes:
yup, that's marketing for you. even the best dinosaur books included pterosaurs (which aren't dinosaurs), and sometimes aquatic reptiles (not even closely related to dinosaurs). and sometimes even synapsids like dimetrodon, which you probably wouldn't even call a "reptile".
Dr Adequate writes:
As I said, dinosaurs have pillar legs that allow them to bear their weight directly under their bodies. As a consequence, dinosaurs have a perforated acetabulum --- that is, they have holes in their hipbones into which the head of the thighbone fits, rather than a hollow in their hipbones in which it rests.
And this is a problem for me. It is misleading and less informative. I would rather be a little semantic and more of a stickler for correct terms, as its not to difficult to learn new words and what they mean.
For example this is my local museum (also the national museum): Paleobiology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
It is the Smithsonian, it’s in Washington D,C. on the mall, a couple blocks from the white house, It’s the museum I go to, to see exhibits, and where I go when I want to see Dinosaurs. If you follow the link there are two kinds of animals on the opening homepage. The fossils of what I would call a Triceratops (a dinosaur), and a Pterodactyl (not a dinosaur) both under the heading of Dinosaurs. I must admit, I never really checked their facts I just said ok, this is the dinosaur exhibit, some flew, some swam, some had huge fins on their backs, most were big.
Still though I love to watch the walking with dinosaurs type films, with CGI animals and fantastic scenes.
I just take that stuff with a grain of salt now. It’s still entertaining.
Thanks for the 411

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2012 11:28 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 91 of 373 (664702)
06-04-2012 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by arachnophilia
05-31-2012 1:30 PM


Re: maybe
Arachnophillia writes:
it really is, yeah. but they're getting better! the ones in the 80's were particularly bad, because the whole "birds are dinosaurs" thing hadn't really hit the popular culture yet. even though jurassic park showed a bunch of plucked and naked dromaeosaurs running around, it was still largely responsible for bring this idea into the public consciousness.
So how many Jurassic Dinos had feathers? Did the T-rex?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2012 1:27 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2012 11:35 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 103 by caffeine, posted 06-05-2012 7:10 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 94 of 373 (664740)
06-04-2012 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
06-04-2012 1:27 PM


Re: The Song Of The Dinosaurs
The question that fascinates me is whether they sang. Movies have them roaring like lions, but why should they? Reptiles don't do that. But birds sing, couldn't that have been basal in dinosaurs? (IIRC, baby crocodiles make "cheep" noises just like baby birds, and they're archosaurs, so ...)
I imagine, though I may be wrong in this, that the larger dinosaurs would have had deeper voices. Imagine the "dawn chorus" in the Cretaceous period as the ceratopians and stegosaurs began to boom forth their ponderous oratorios ...
I don't know if this is the sort of thing we could ever be in a position to find out, but I like to think about it.
i don't know. many prey species are quiet, but birds are all pretty darn loud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2012 1:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 06-04-2012 5:41 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024