Animation Source Forums

Where did you find that? I want to read that. I need a laugh.

I agree with Blake.

Nough said^^

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

I went thru the time I loved them too and still find them fascinating.

Yeah, you are.

BTW, there are cases of fossil bones with holes in them, but those were just the work of teeth and claws. It's not hard to imagine someone misinterpreting those on purpose, though. Like that stuff about Neanderthal Man? Recent research showed that Neanderthals were not a different species at all. They were people like you and me, with a bone deformity still found today. lol I guess I'm the one off-topic now.

First point I'd like to make is that if it were all fake then why would they make it all up in the first place? There seems to purpose in making up that huge dinosaurs lived on earth for millions of years just to trick people.

Second point Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago and yes there were primitive mammals around the time of the Jurassic (65 million years ago) but it has been proven (through fossils etc:) that the first primitive homo-sapien started to appear 500,000 yrs ago which is only half a million years ago, which is 64.5 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Third point, in case any one brings it up that if dinosaurs were alive for many millions of years then why have we found little bones of them? The answer being that it is rare that a dinosaur fossil (or any other fossils) will be created. Only under certain situation will they preserved if they are not in these contains they disappear for ever.

Fourth Point, actually if we look at DNA we can see the today the closest living relatives to dinosaurs are the birds not lizards or crocodiles.

So yes i believe they did exsist

I read it an a book of Smarties Incredible Facts. As someone else said, their is a natural explanation, but it's still funny.

Dinosaurs were real we have proof that they exist. If they didn't exist why would we find them in the ground? PS:Loch Ness Monster is an elephant trunk who comes up for air.

It's not really debatable...dinosaurs existed.

Two words: Deoxyribonucleic Acid (For those of you who didn't know what DNA stood for, now you know.)

^ The above is solid proof of the existence of dinosaurs, found through fossilized remains.

Technically, Nessie is probably a plesiosaur. Not a dinosaur exactly, but close. The key difference is that all dinosaurs had legs and walked on land. But yes, I am convinced that Nessie is a plesiosaur. It's theonly animal that could fit all the visual and behavior traits described. I remember arguing with my dad about Nessie's existence as a kid, and believe it or not it was largely by not listening to a word he said that I've gotten to where I am today (and that's definitely a good thing).


Impossible. To begin with, there are no elephants in that area. Second, there are authentic underwater photos of Nessie which plainly show diamond-shaped flippers, from which the beast got its scientific name, Nessiteras rhombopteryx, meaning "Diamond-finned creature from Loch Ness." You have my word I am not making this up. And third, there are eyewitness accounts of the monster coming on land at night (at least one person nearly rammed her with his motorcycle!). What they saw was nothing like an elephant, and the prospect of Nessie coming out of the water is perfectly in line with all the available evidence about a plesiosaur's egg-layng habits. So it makes perfect sense for Nessie to be a plesiosaur, and is at the same time ridiculous to call it an elephant.[/i]

Just to correct you on a few matters: First, all that stuff is done using highly inaccurate dating techniques, such as carbon dating. tests using it have "revealed" everything from freshly killed seals to still-living snail shells to be millions of years dead. Therefore, carbon dating is not at all reliable. In fact, calculations indicate there's only enough Carbon 14 in existence to suggest that the Earth itself is about 10,000 years old. Therefore, the MYA (Millions of Years Ago) figure has no basis.

Second of all, there is not enough intact dinosaur DNA to provide accurate information. The so-called bird connection is based on bones. However, all the bird-like dinosaurs, such as Ornithomimus, were lizard-hipped, and most of the feathered dinosaur illustrations (like feathered T-Rexes) have no fossil basis whatsoever. I'm not trying to be a know-it all here, just set the record straight.

1) Read this article (
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Paleontology-Dinosaurs-1571/DAting-Methods.htm) and make sure you read all of it and just incase no one wants to read all of it and follow the links here is the major point "First, though, I'd like to say that carbon14 dating is NEVER used on dinosaur fossils" There are other methods that are used, i never recall myself saying that C-14 was all they used i didn't even mention it.

2) I agree that i was wrong the bird-dinosaur theory is still in the throes of reality or fiction. Again here is a good website tossing up the odds of both sides of the agrument http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Carbon dating has been known to be unreliable sometimes. However, they also have atomic dating which is far more accurate.

I'm not sure I've heard of that one. Does it operate on the same basis as Carbon 14 (i.e., balance of radioactive-to-broken-down-isotopes)?