Talk:Living dinosaurs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

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)

[edit] 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 ^{(T | C | @)} 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)

[edit] 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)