Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #634699 > unrolled thread

speaking of dinosaurs..

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-29 13:21 -0700
    Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 14:40 -0700
      Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-29 18:08 -0700
      Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2017-05-31 15:22 -0400
        Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-31 15:07 -0700
          Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-01 01:41 +0200
            Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-31 19:24 -0500
              Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-01 02:51 +0200
                Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. Fred Flintstone <fred@ptera.dactyl.town> - 2017-05-31 21:05 -0500
              Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-31 19:38 -0700
                Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-05-31 21:53 -0500
                  Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 05:36 -0400
              Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-06-01 04:55 +0000
                Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-06-01 00:26 -0500
                Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-07 23:02 -0700
                  Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-08 22:38 -0700
                    Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-09 10:41 -0700
                      Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-09 10:57 -0700
                        Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-10 11:01 -0700
                          Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-12 09:38 -0700
                            Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-12 22:08 -0700
                              Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-13 09:30 -0700
                                Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-13 14:14 -0700
                                  Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-13 20:46 -0700
                                    Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-14 12:28 -0700
                                      Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-14 12:37 -0700
                                        Re: speaking of dinosaurs.. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-15 09:08 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#634699 — speaking of dinosaurs..

i'm getting very suspicious of the
'scientific community' with their
step by step findings..of

dinosaurs with feathers.

youknowwatimean?

you know...
little things that come out
slowly from them..like
'possible some dinosaurs had feathers'
and
'dinosaurs may have turned into birds'

youknowwatimean? very suspicious findings...


i suspect
they discovered
 all those millions
of dinosaurs fossils are
 actually just...birds.


and that the dinosaurs did not
evolve into birds, they simply
were birds all the time.


So, they got all these birds in
their dinosaur collection..
and have to throw it in the garbage...
where it belongs.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#634701

"The Starmaker"  wrote in message news:592C82BA.14FA@ix.netcom.com... 

i'm getting very suspicious of the
'scientific community' with their
step by step findings..of

dinosaurs with feathers.

youknowwatimean?

you know...
little things that come out
slowly from them..like
'possible some dinosaurs had feathers'
and
'dinosaurs may have turned into birds'

youknowwatimean? very suspicious findings...


i suspect
they discovered
all those millions
of dinosaurs fossils are
actually just...birds.


and that the dinosaurs did not
evolve into birds, they simply
were birds all the time.


So, they got all these birds in
their dinosaur collection..
and have to throw it in the garbage...
where it belongs.


*** are you perhaps overthinking evolution a bit ???
some smaller creatures developed wings in their
pursuit of their daily food. Even some of the smaller
dinosaurs.  A beast like Tyrannosaurus Rex of course
would require the wingspan of a 747 and weight several
tons, thus making that option a non event.
Since feathers decompose quickly, the only ones that
scientists can retrieve are the few which became petrified
by either volcanic ash or river bank silt.
It's not all that complicated, Stardude ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634710

Hägar wrote:
> 
> "The Starmaker"  wrote in message news:592C82BA.14FA@ix.netcom.com...
> 
> i'm getting very suspicious of the
> 'scientific community' with their
> step by step findings..of
> 
> dinosaurs with feathers.
> 
> youknowwatimean?
> 
> you know...
> little things that come out
> slowly from them..like
> 'possible some dinosaurs had feathers'
> and
> 'dinosaurs may have turned into birds'
> 
> youknowwatimean? very suspicious findings...
> 
> i suspect
> they discovered
> all those millions
> of dinosaurs fossils are
> actually just...birds.
> 
> and that the dinosaurs did not
> evolve into birds, they simply
> were birds all the time.
> 
> So, they got all these birds in
> their dinosaur collection..
> and have to throw it in the garbage...
> where it belongs.
> 
> *** are you perhaps overthinking evolution a bit ???
> some smaller creatures developed wings in their
> pursuit of their daily food. Even some of the smaller
> dinosaurs.  A beast like Tyrannosaurus Rex of course
> would require the wingspan of a 747 and weight several
> tons, thus making that option a non event.
> Since feathers decompose quickly, the only ones that
> scientists can retrieve are the few which became petrified
> by either volcanic ash or river bank silt.
> It's not all that complicated, Stardude ...


*** are you perhaps overthinking a Tyrannosaurus Rex bit ????

How many did they found...one?


one?


uno???


My suspicion comes from the 'scientific community' that label a 5 inch creature a...dinosaur.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634878

The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
flying are prohibitive ! Much smaller Taradactiles were really
stretching the envelope !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634904

"SteveGG"  wrote in message 
news:pn5uicts2dettghmgqk9k3hnomusghci0v@4ax.com...

The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
flying are prohibitive ! Much smaller Taradactiles were really
stretching the envelope !


*** tell that to the Hollyweird Liberal movie makers of the
Jurassic Park ilk, who have those 2 ton monsters soaring
through the air on gossamer wings .... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634917

[Your readers are _not_ hyper-intelligent bats used to reading from bottom 
to top.  Also, in English, punctuation is seldom preceded by space.
Learn to post.]

“Hägar” amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:

> The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )

There is no “Brontasaurus”.  Perhaps you were thinking of _Brontosaurus_, 
but nobody has claimed that Brontosaurus could fly.

> flying are prohibitive !

Why?

> Much smaller Taradactiles
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pardon?

> were really stretching the envelope !

Why?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634934

Thomas 'PointyHead' Lahn wrote:
>
> [Your readers are _not_ hyper-intelligent bats used to reading from bottom 
> to top.  Also, in English, punctuation is seldom preceded by space.
> Learn to post.]
>
> "Hägar" amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
>
> > The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
>
> There is no "Brontasaurus". Perhaps you were thinking of _Brontosaurus_, 
> but nobody has claimed that Brontosaurus could fly.
>
> > flying are prohibitive !
>
> Why?

As organsisms increase in size, the cross-section, and thus the
load-bearing capacity, of body parts increases with the square
of the size increase, whereas the mass increases with its cube.
A physicist should know that, Pointy Head.

> > Much smaller Taradactiles
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Pardon?

Pterodactyl, dummy.

> > were really stretching the envelope !
>
> Why?

'Coz they were big, dummy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634935

Ned Latham wrote:

> Thomas 'PointyHead' Lahn wrote:
>> "Hägar" amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
>> > The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
>>
>> There is no "Brontasaurus". Perhaps you were thinking of _Brontosaurus_,
>> but nobody has claimed that Brontosaurus could fly.
>>
>> > flying are prohibitive !
>>
>> Why?
> 
> As organsisms increase in size, the cross-section, and thus the
> load-bearing capacity, of body parts increases with the square
> of the size increase, whereas the mass increases with its cube.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>

> A physicist should know that,

A _crackpot_ may.

> Pointy Head.

So you *are* only a troll after all?

>> > Much smaller Taradactiles
>>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Pardon?
> 
> Pterodactyl, dummy.

Obviously the “dummy” is the person who could not write the word properly in 
the first place, and confused it with

<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Taradactile>

which is probably as far as their "education" went.

But there *have* *been* large _pterosaurs_ like the Pteranodon (wingspan ca. 
7 m) that could fly:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur>

Who doubts that should inform themselves about the skeleton of birds.
 
>> > were really stretching the envelope !
>> Why?
> 
> 'Coz they were big, dummy.

So you are only a troll after all.  A pity.  *PLONK*

F'up2 where it belongs

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634944

Thomas 'PointyHead' Lahn wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointyHead' Lahn wrote:
> > > "Hägar" amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
> > > >
> > > > The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
> > >
> > > There is no "Brontasaurus". Perhaps you were thinking of _Brontosaurus_,
> > > but nobody has claimed that Brontosaurus could fly.
> > >
> > > > flying are prohibitive !
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > As organsisms increase in size, the cross-section, and thus the
> > load-bearing capacity, of body parts increases with the square
> > of the size increase, whereas the mass increases with its cube.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>

Not even relenamt, moron.

> > A physicist should know that,
>
> A _crackpot_ may.

*Anyone* may, Pointy Head. A physicist *should*.

> > Pointy Head.
>
> So you *are* only a troll after all?

Nope. Look it up, Pointy Head.

> > > > Much smaller Taradactiles
> > >                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Pardon?
> >
> > Pterodactyl, dummy.
>
> Obviously the "dummy" is the person who could not write the
> word properly in the first place,

Maybe not. Your failure to recognise the word, though...

> and confused it with
>
> <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Taradactile>

Or maybe he was laughing at the cretin who coined the word.

> which is probably as far as their "education" went.

Whereas you, O Learbed One, did what? Other than a course in
sexual perversion, that is.

> But there *have* *been* large _pterosaurs_ like the Pteranodon
> (wingspan ca. 7 m) that could fly:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur>
>
> Who doubts that should inform themselves about the skeleton of birds.

Wot? Wot? Berds av skeletons? Will wonders never cease?

"Quetzalcoatlus had a wingspan of about 35 feet (10.6 meters),
or about the wingspan of a F-16 fighter. It was among the last
pterodactyls to look down on dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Nov 8, 2012"

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49746642/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/
pterodactyl-was-so-big-it-couldnt-fly-scientist-claims/#.WS9zHFQZphE

> > > > were really stretching the envelope !
> > > Why?
> >
> > 'Coz they were big, dummy.
>
> So you are only a troll after all.

Nope. I give abusers a dose of their own medicine.

> A pity.

No. It's a good thing, actyally. Bullies tebd to heep their
heads down when they get smacked.

> *PLONK*

Larf. Yer gonna play ostrich now? You might be able to run,
coward, but you can't hise.

Get your habd off it, moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634948

Ned Latham wrote:
> 
> Thomas 'PointyHead' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > [Your readers are _not_ hyper-intelligent bats used to reading from bottom
> > to top.  Also, in English, punctuation is seldom preceded by space.
> > Learn to post.]
> >
> > "Hägar" amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
> >
> > > The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
> >
> > There is no "Brontasaurus". Perhaps you were thinking of _Brontosaurus_,
> > but nobody has claimed that Brontosaurus could fly.
> >
> > > flying are prohibitive !
> >
> > Why?
> 
> As organsisms increase in size, the cross-section, and thus the
> load-bearing capacity, of body parts increases with the square
> of the size increase, whereas the mass increases with its cube.
> A physicist should know that, Pointy Head.
> 
> > > Much smaller Taradactiles
> >                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Pardon?
> 
> Pterodactyl, dummy.
> 
> > > were really stretching the envelope !
> >
> > Why?
> 
> 'Coz they were big, dummy.


There is no proof that a brontosaurus ever existed. 


People in that field make up stuff just like NASA with underground oceans a billions of earth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634949

The Starmaker wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointyHead' Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > [Your readers are _not_ hyper-intelligent bats used to reading from bottom
> > > to top.  Also, in English, punctuation is seldom preceded by space.
> > > Learn to post.]
> > >
> > > "Hägar" amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
> > >
> > > > The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
> > >
> > > There is no "Brontasaurus". Perhaps you were thinking of _Brontosaurus_,
> > > but nobody has claimed that Brontosaurus could fly.
> > >
> > > > flying are prohibitive !
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > As organsisms increase in size, the cross-section, and thus the
> > load-bearing capacity, of body parts increases with the square
> > of the size increase, whereas the mass increases with its cube.
> > A physicist should know that, Pointy Head.
> >
> > > > Much smaller Taradactiles
> > >                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Pardon?
> >
> > Pterodactyl, dummy.
> >
> > > > were really stretching the envelope !
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > 'Coz they were big, dummy.
>
> There is no proof that a brontosaurus ever existed.

I presume you mean "evidence"?

It seems that there's a bit of a kerfuffke going on right now
on that matter. Seems they think that they were wrong to think
that they were wrong. Who'd a thunk it?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brontosaurus-is-back1/

> People in that field make up stuff just like NASA with underground
> oceans a billions of earth.

Theu're not unique in that. Physics is a minefield of myth and dogma.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634971

In article <slrnoiv0cj.urv.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>, 
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz says...
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Thomas 'PointyHead' Lahn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [Your readers are _not_ hyper-intelligent bats used to reading from bottom
> > > > to top.  Also, in English, punctuation is seldom preceded by space.
> > > > Learn to post.]
> > > >
> > > > "Hägar" amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
> > > >
> > > > > The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
> > > >
> > > > There is no "Brontasaurus". Perhaps you were thinking of _Brontosaurus_,
> > > > but nobody has claimed that Brontosaurus could fly.
> > > >
> > > > > flying are prohibitive !
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > As organsisms increase in size, the cross-section, and thus the
> > > load-bearing capacity, of body parts increases with the square
> > > of the size increase, whereas the mass increases with its cube.
> > > A physicist should know that, Pointy Head.
> > >
> > > > > Much smaller Taradactiles
> > > >                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > Pardon?
> > >
> > > Pterodactyl, dummy.
> > >
> > > > > were really stretching the envelope !
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > 'Coz they were big, dummy.
> >
> > There is no proof that a brontosaurus ever existed.
> 
> I presume you mean "evidence"?
> 
> It seems that there's a bit of a kerfuffke going on right now
> on that matter. Seems they think that they were wrong to think
> that they were wrong. Who'd a thunk it?
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brontosaurus-is-back1/

"never existed" is very misleading.  The animal called "Brontosaurus" did 
exist, it's just that two people named it with different names and the 
other name is the one that stuck.
 
> > People in that field make up stuff just like NASA with underground
> > oceans a billions of earth.
> 
> Theu're not unique in that. Physics is a minefield of myth and dogma.

What's "mythical" or "dogmatic" about under-ice oceans?  Give us another 
explanation for the observations and your reasons that your version fits 
the observations better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634954

In article <slrnoiunlj.r5v.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>,
Ned Latham  <poster> wrote:
>Thomas 'PointyHead' Lahn wrote:
>>
>> [Your readers are _not_ hyper-intelligent bats used to reading from bottom 
>> to top.  Also, in English, punctuation is seldom preceded by space.
>> Learn to post.]
>>
>> "Hägar" amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
>>
>> > The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
>>
>> There is no "Brontasaurus". Perhaps you were thinking of _Brontosaurus_, 
>> but nobody has claimed that Brontosaurus could fly.
>>
>> > flying are prohibitive !
>>
>> Why?
>
>As organsisms increase in size, the cross-section, and thus the
>load-bearing capacity, of body parts increases with the square
>of the size increase, whereas the mass increases with its cube.
>A physicist should know that, Pointy Head.
>
>> > Much smaller Taradactiles
>>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Pardon?
>
>Pterodactyl, dummy.
>
>> > were really stretching the envelope !
>>
>> Why?
>
>'Coz they were big, dummy.

Wide wingspans, but not very heavy.  They had hollow bones, as
their descendants the birds do.  The largest whose remains have
been discovered thus far was _Quetzalcoatlus,_ whose wingspan was
about 11 meters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634955

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointyHead' Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > [Your readers are _not_ hyper-intelligent bats used to reading
> > > from bottom  to top.  Also, in English, punctuation is seldom
> > > preceded by space. Learn to post.]
> > >
> > > "Hägar" amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups:
> > >
> > > > The physics of an organic creature that big ( e.g. - Brontasaurus )
> > >
> > > There is no "Brontasaurus". Perhaps you were thinking of
> > > _Brontosaurus_,  but nobody has claimed that Brontosaurus
> > > could fly.
> > >
> > > > flying are prohibitive !
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > As organsisms increase in size, the cross-section, and thus the
> > load-bearing capacity, of body parts increases with the square
> > of the size increase, whereas the mass increases with its cube.
> > A physicist should know that, Pointy Head.
> >
> > > > Much smaller Taradactiles
> > >                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Pardon?
> >
> > Pterodactyls, dummy.
> >
> > > > were really stretching the envelope !
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > 'Coz they were big, dummy.
>
> Wide wingspans, but not very heavy. They had hollow bones, as
> their descendants the birds do. The largest whose remains have
> been discovered thus far was _Quetzalcoatlus,_ whose wingspan was
> about 11 meters.

But that baby's estimated to have been about 70 kg. Pretty much
the limit for flesh and bone. As Hagar said.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus

Yep. Saw that. Thanks, Dot (you don't mind being called that,
I hope?).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635774

of course there are things i haven't figured out yet..
like what is the connection between a dinosaur and a person.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635875

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> of course there are things i haven't figured out yet..
> like what is the connection between a dinosaur and a person.

What killed the dinosaurs wasn't an asteroid...but simply
the 'scientific community' simply changing the word dinosaur to...birds.

Changing the word dinosaurs to birds alone killed a million dinosaurs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635898

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > of course there are things i haven't figured out yet..
> > like what is the connection between a dinosaur and a person.
> 
> What killed the dinosaurs wasn't an asteroid...but simply
> the 'scientific community' simply changing the word dinosaur to...birds.
> 
> Changing the word dinosaurs to birds alone killed a million dinosaurs.



this just in...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/06/09/stunning-fossil-reveals-prehistoric-baby-bird-caught-in-amber/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635905

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > of course there are things i haven't figured out yet..
> > > like what is the connection between a dinosaur and a person.
> >
> > What killed the dinosaurs wasn't an asteroid...but simply
> > the 'scientific community' simply changing the word dinosaur to...birds.
> >
> > Changing the word dinosaurs to birds alone killed a million dinosaurs.
> 
> this just in...
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/06/09/stunning-fossil-reveals-prehistoric-baby-bird-caught-in-amber/


it read: "Birds are avian dinosaurs, after all.)"



The stupid journalist doesn't understand an avian dinosaurs is a bird, not a dinosaur!


But most of yous are stupid anyway, so what difference does it make? What's one more stupid journalist among yous????




Okay count...you got one T. Rex dinosaur, and one billion avian dinosaurs. How many dinosaurs is that?


Okay, maybe the big numbers might hinder yous...


You got three birds in a cage at home and one dino doll, how amy dinosaurs is that????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#636012

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > of course there are things i haven't figured out yet..
> > > > like what is the connection between a dinosaur and a person.
> > >
> > > What killed the dinosaurs wasn't an asteroid...but simply
> > > the 'scientific community' simply changing the word dinosaur to...birds.
> > >
> > > Changing the word dinosaurs to birds alone killed a million dinosaurs.
> >
> > this just in...
> >
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/06/09/stunning-fossil-reveals-prehistoric-baby-bird-caught-in-amber/
> 
> it read: "Birds are avian dinosaurs, after all.)"
> 
> The stupid journalist doesn't understand an avian dinosaurs is a bird, not a dinosaur!
> 
> But most of yous are stupid anyway, so what difference does it make? What's one more stupid journalist among yous????
> 
> Okay count...you got one T. Rex dinosaur, and one billion avian dinosaurs. How many dinosaurs is that?
> 
> Okay, maybe the big numbers might hinder yous...
> 
> You got three birds in a cage at home and one dino doll, how amy dinosaurs is that????



Now, the question is...What is an 'avian dinosaur'? Or, What are 'avian
dinosaurs'?


Is it a fake word? 


chirp, chirp, chirp..


tweet, tweet, tweet...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#636143

Paparios wrote:
> 
> El sábado, 10 de junio de 2017, 14:01:52 (UTC-4), The Starmaker  escribió:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > of course there are things i haven't figured out yet..
> > > > > > like what is the connection between a dinosaur and a person.
> > > > >
> > > > > What killed the dinosaurs wasn't an asteroid...but simply
> > > > > the 'scientific community' simply changing the word dinosaur to...birds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Changing the word dinosaurs to birds alone killed a million dinosaurs.
> > > >
> > > > this just in...
> > > >
> > > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/06/09/stunning-fossil-reveals-prehistoric-baby-bird-caught-in-amber/
> > >
> > > it read: "Birds are avian dinosaurs, after all.)"
> > >
> > > The stupid journalist doesn't understand an avian dinosaurs is a bird, not a dinosaur!
> > >
> > > But most of yous are stupid anyway, so what difference does it make? What's one more stupid journalist among yous????
> > >
> > > Okay count...you got one T. Rex dinosaur, and one billion avian dinosaurs. How many dinosaurs is that?
> > >
> > > Okay, maybe the big numbers might hinder yous...
> > >
> > > You got three birds in a cage at home and one dino doll, how amy dinosaurs is that????
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, the question is...What is an 'avian dinosaur'? Or, What are 'avian
> > dinosaurs'?
> >
> >
> 
> Flying and walking dinosaurs is the same reelationship we have with tree monkeys and walking monkeys like yourself


Flying dinosaucers??? So you're saying there were probably a billion Flying dinosaucers and one TRex walking dino, is that right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web