User talk:Dinoguy4

Welcome...

Hello, Dinoguy4, and

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

Wikipedia's talk pages are not for preaching or debating. They are solely for discussion of improvement of the corresponding article. Please see

Hi DG4, thanks for the offer (always up for dino discussions!) but I can see by your user page that you claim to be a strong believer in creation, so I'm not sure what exactly you're looking to accomplish and I'm not interested in witnessing. Are there any specific questions about the generally accepted sequence of developments in the transition from non-avian dinosaurs to birds you wanted to ask about? Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why do scientists try to use archeopteryx as evidence when birds are found in earlier layers of the geological column?69.23.218.70 (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Dinoguy4[reply]

I think that you should post in his discussion page to keep the discussion going. And there are no birds known from earlier that Archaeopteryx, Protoavis is not a bird. And the concept of bird is a bit blurry, as limits are hard to establish when taking evolution into account. And it's not only Archeopteryx, it is the whole of coelurosauria. And the shared characters. And all the bird species in the Cretaceous period. And, please, elaborate why do you belive strongly in creation? I mean, I find it flawed, it involves violations of the laws of physics, and of the principe that all life comes from other life (abiogenesis is a different matter, and, in any case, what life IS is blurry, take a look at viruses). The existance or not of a superior being is a matter of every single person. I won't belive in it, I will accept people beliving in it, and I will try to be a good person all arround, I do not have a need of a religion to see what is right and what is wrong. I also can't see why, in the modern day, there are still people who belive that what the traditional myths of a nomad culture of 3000 years ago say could have prevalence over the results investigation of the world have yielded, knowing that the most important religious organization, who is based on those myths (the Bible qualifies as mythology, it's its nature. Just like the greek mythology, or the Qu'uran), have accepted the ammount of evidence evolution has and that the start of the Genesis book should not be interpreted literally; unless it comes from the misguided belief that evolutinism supported the nazi ideology, back in the Second World War, and it comes from an anti-nazi belief. In any case, I like this kind of debate, and I hope it doesn't get bad-looking. I'll be glad to see if both of us are willing to back off and learn. Remember to look for sources, contrast them, and just a tip: Answers in Genesis is SEVERELY flawed, it doesn't say all the info, only those parts that justify them. And Jack Chick gets even the Bible wrong, so don't use him, it would be a waste of time.

Anyway, good luck! Eriorguez (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]