[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 272 KB, 1833x982, yL1Xh2l~01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53801065 No.53801065 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>Magic finally does dinosaurs again

Fuck sakes, why can't we have nice things?

>> No.53801097
File: 114 KB, 720x1023, Your_Tears_Are_Delicious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>many current day avians, including chickens and turkeys, are descendant from dinosaurs.
>People still get assblasted over feathered dinosaurs because they can't accept that Jurassic Park was wrong.

>> No.53801113


>> No.53801131

This >>53801097

Reminder that if they had known dinos had feathers when they made Jurassic Park, the dinos would have had feathers in Jurassic Park.

>> No.53801142

Personally, I think the real problem is that pretty much all artist depictions of Feathered dinos I've seen, OP included, are literally just Jurassic park dinos with feathers glued onto their backs.

>> No.53801146

Feather-fags BTFO.


>> No.53801193

Dinosaurs never even existed, repent you atheistic heathens

>> No.53801223

>while wholeheartedly acknowledging that dinosaurs mostly had feathers, the study argues that a T. Rex, specifically, may have been large enough that it didn't need feathers to keep itself warm

Wow, you sure showed all those featherfags, anon. The fact that one dinosaur MAY have not had the feathers typical to the rest of its family specifically because of its abnormal size has completely and utterly destroyed the image of feathered dinosaurs in all our hearts.

The article you links specifically cites fossil evidence of feathers being typical in other species of Tyranosaur. Are you retarded, or do you just not bother to read shit before you decide it supports your argument?

>> No.53801267

Considering "in all of our hearts" should refer to the scaled beasts we knew when growing up.

This implies that you are underage.

>> No.53801295
File: 207 KB, 1200x675, kolaghan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I don't mind because feathered "lizards" are really cool looking.
Shit, feathered dragons were cool when MTG did them back in 2014

>> No.53801321

Those worked only because they needed to differentiate 5 tribes of dragons from each other.

>> No.53801327

I'm 25. I just don't suck Steven Shekelberg's dick as hard as you do.

Nice attempt to deflect your ignorance, though. I'm sure everyone's been distracted from your lack of reading comprehension and general ignorance.

>> No.53801336


I never realized Kolaghan's brood had feathers.

>> No.53801382

Personally I like the idea of feather-winged dragons more than bat-winged dragons.

Dragons are typical fictional creatures of their era, being a bunch of other animals thrown together in weird combinations, but it makes more sense to imagine the general wing structure of an avian on a reptile, rather than a mammalian structure that probably didn't even exist at that point.

Exactly how old are bats as an Order, anyways?

>> No.53801388
File: 101 KB, 1280x720, 1472049115626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I wouldn't even mind, except why the fuck are the dinosaur feathers so colorful? Not every random bird is as colorful as a fucking peacock or a parrot.

>> No.53801395

The main true reason is that IW needs people with a postgrad tier education to work properly.

>> No.53801411
File: 240 KB, 1094x800, Ojutai dragon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Th-They only looked cool because there needed to be a lot of dragons
That doesn't stop the Kolaghan from being the coolest out of all the potential dragon broods on Tarkir, with the Ojutai being a far second. Also feathered.

Yup. Did you notice that Ugin had feathers?

>> No.53801451

Because then people would bitch even harder.

>> No.53801459

The cretaceous was a tropical paradise

>> No.53801491

>I wouldn't even mind, except why the fuck are the dinosaur feathers so colorful? Not every random bird is as colorful as a fucking peacock or a parrot.

Aren't most tropical birds brightly colored because of their environment

Dinosaurs that lived in areas with lots of color would likely have colorful plumage. The dinosaurs that lived in the barren plains where everything was browns and grays would probably have less-colorful plumage.

>> No.53801496

Oh. Now its "da jews"
Who's actually arrogant here?

"Stop liking what I don't like" fucking retard. Stay away from my game.

>> No.53801515

Magic doesn't take place in that era, dog.

>> No.53801523

Different anon here.

I read Jurassic Park years before the movie came out. Feathered dinosaurs are fine.

>> No.53801536 [DELETED] 

>humans evolved from fish, yet people get assblasted when niggers drown in the pool

>> No.53801544

Isn't that the only reason to play The Sims?

>> No.53801556


Every tropical bird would just be green with that reasoning. It just doesn't hold.

>> No.53801562

You should say theropods. Other dinosaurs in other familys don't have feathers. And a lot didn't live in tropical areas.

Bright plumage, from an evolutionary standpoint is more detrimental than a benefit.

>> No.53801575
File: 2.90 MB, 650x364, birds.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.53801697


Man I wish the artwork was larger on cards.

>> No.53801703

So are you looking for full plumage or facial plumage or?

>> No.53801740
File: 44 KB, 460x450, piratedinosaurs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.53801745

How did they both go down so easily?

>> No.53801748


>> No.53801751

Scaly T-Rex is fine, but we have feather impressions from close relatives and many from smaller theropods. I don't know how BTFO that is

>> No.53801759
File: 739 KB, 1920x1120, PW_Ugin_Header_Preloader.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yup. I have the artbook from Zendikar and those are definitely feathers.

>> No.53801783
File: 426 KB, 803x1024, Golden-Eagle-Talons.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This is how.

>> No.53801785
File: 57 KB, 312x445, 280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.53801806

Treva looks a bit boring to me but true, earlier than 2014

>> No.53801810

Damn, thought revenge-bird was gonna win for a second. Now I'm just sad.

>> No.53801926

>guy on the right
>moooooooooooooommmm why that dinosaur have feathers?
op gets to be in mtg art.

>> No.53801949

The animals they're using did though. I bet you're the same kind of shitposter that defends black Greeks and black Egyptians because "muh fantasy setting."

>> No.53801953

i want to pet that fluff

>> No.53802098

Well, you look at the way most birds plumage transition into the beak, I just think it was probably similar for feather into muzzle on dinosaurs.
>>53801783 is a pretty good example of a bird in profile, so take a look where the nostril transforms into beak. Imagine if, instead of that single meat-ripping edge, the yellow skin extended just a little farther and was lined with teeth.

Also, look at the legs in OP. Now look at the legs on that eagle. In most avians the feathers continue at least to the ankle, if not all the way to the base of the talons, like in the picture. For some reason, though, artists are terrified of putting feathers on the back limbs of dinosaurs. Probably because it'll cross the line between truly avian anatomy and the Spielberg hollywood fairy tales everyone seems so in love with

>> No.53802406

Do you run a strawman factory?

>> No.53802758

Couple of pigeon ass turkey looking motherfuckers having a peck-fight vs an actual bird of prey that's evolved to kill shit with its dagger feet, who you betting on?

>> No.53802802

I dont throw "objectively" around often.

But reptile dinosaurs are objectively cooler looking than feathered. Science be damned.

>> No.53802830

>Tries to play "Objectively"
>Proceeds to say something subjective
Well now we know you don't use "objectively" that often

Also, you're opinion is subjectively trash.

>> No.53802934

Take a poll bitch.
Most I've seen scaled wins out.

Or let me guess, deciding something the democratic way is against your religion or political compass?

>> No.53802970

That's still not objective scalie.

>> No.53802984

No no no no no. You're looking at this the wrong way.

On one hand, Feathered Dinosaurs.

On the other hand... Tribal: Bird Lizard/Bird Dragon might become a thing. Do you not want Birbs all up in your Lizard/Dragon Tribal?

>> No.53803032

Dear diary. Today I learned that /pol/tards don't like feathered dinosaurs. They're the first group of people I've ever encountered that dislike them. What an awful day.

>> No.53803067

What does /pol/ have to do with anything.

I'll take either. I prefer scaled. Its the feather-fags who are losing thier minds because "muh science"

>> No.53803084

Why does everyone draw feathers on dinosaurs like they're middle aged and balding from the stomach up? They look diseased and its hilarious, especially the hot pink t-rex.

>> No.53803162

There were only a few dinosaur lineages with feathers, so dont expect too many feathered dinos running around. Almost all herbivores and a good number of carnivores should be feather free.

>> No.53803163
File: 38 KB, 634x423, article-2243526-165C9F0E000005DC-29_634x423[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Feathers are for people with taste. Pictured, a cat as imagined by the idiots who saran-wrapped skin onto dinosaur skeletons.

>> No.53803195
File: 567 KB, 1975x672, Tyrannosaurus_rex_mmartyniuk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]



>> No.53803227
File: 202 KB, 1024x494, 55_tyrannosaurus_vlad_konstantinov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Sorry guys. You're just stupid cunts who think they are smart because they can wow thier grandparents with 30 year old science. Nobody gives a fuck here. You aren't impressing anyone.

>> No.53803251

looks more like a primate rendition of the dinosaur treatment given the feet.

>> No.53803271


Who cares, they look better with scaly skin and there's a fucking Aztec riding one so I don't think realism was at the top of the agenda.

>> No.53803287

That's a mandrill you peasant.
Though your point still stands.

>> No.53803294

The feet of cat skeletons look like that, though.

>> No.53803300
File: 32 KB, 630x420, original-5700-1435005724-19.jpg?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It is a shrink-wrapped baboon, you philistines. This is the cat.

>> No.53803362

Oh look.

A flying velociraptor.

How nice.

>> No.53803364

>there are people ITT who think that crazy murderbird precursors are lame.

>> No.53803366

Aztecs actually have feathered snake in their mythology so feathered dinosaurs fits more with the theme.

>> No.53803370
File: 76 KB, 480x640, 2791950-7736198272-39276.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I think my favorite part is the hawk barely opens his mouth. He just comes across as much more serious than those WEIRDOS.

>> No.53803386

So maybe all dinosaurs are REALLY cute?

>> No.53803393


>> No.53803416

I like feathered dinosaurs but not like the one on that pic. That lizard looks like he have a feathered swimsuit or something.

>> No.53803418

>it's covered in spikes and is angry all the time so it looks cooler!!!
Fuck off. I bet you think the military uses "assault weapons", too.

>> No.53803452
File: 367 KB, 2000x1251, 4695781-rawr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>>53803195 >>53803227
There's a middle ground, famalam. It might not be scientifically accurate, but damn if it isn't sexy.

>> No.53803472

>>53803163 >>53803195
>comparing an artistic sketch to something more detailed
You aren't very bright are you?

>> No.53803576


"Assault weapon" is a colloquialism and bitching about it only proves that you're an autistic fuck

>> No.53803577

>black Egyptians

Are you literally retarded?

>> No.53803593
File: 38 KB, 500x290, birb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Theropods, at least.

>> No.53803606

He's a /pol/-poster, so it's entirely possible.

>> No.53803627

I want these as ixalan's bant dinosaurs.

>> No.53803640
File: 555 KB, 2684x1200, trex fluffy_rex_by_arvalis-d7pmir4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Nice strawman.

>> No.53803664

Egyptians were from Europe....

>> No.53803676

So far the only feathered ones I like.

Is this Cruella de Vil's fursona?

>> No.53803683

That looks like shit.

>> No.53803733
File: 18 KB, 461x305, velociraptor running.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Feathers on large dino's isn't very accurate. The leading theory on how feathers evolved is that the smaller creatures needed to preserve heat. Thus the smaller dinos, such as Velociraptor, would have them but the larger ones wouldn't. Contrary to popular belief, Velociraptors were around the size of a dog.

I'm not going to complain about it though because the feathers look cool.

>> No.53803757

no, my personal gripe is that they keep on making every dinosaur into a fucking parrot. Everything is red and orange and shit.

For every parakeets and blue jays there's also sparrows and mocking birds with drab ass colors.

Also recent studies seem to to think that large dinos like T Rex were hairless or had minimal quill hair at best.

>> No.53803767

we've been through this, a study was posted earlier explaining how it was unlikely large dinosaurs like the T-Rex had feathers

>> No.53803787

One, no? They were North African / West Asian. Two, why not have FANTASY black fantasy!Egyptians? Obviously it'd be silly in a historical setting (outside of when they got conquerrd by Nubians), but in a fantasy setting, why not?

>> No.53803789

No, the Ptolemic dynasty was from Europe and Lower Egypt was partially settled by traders

>> No.53803800

He was making fun of you

>> No.53803808
File: 144 KB, 1080x721, Screenshot_2017-06-14-14-42-26~01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Not only are feather-fags on the retreat.

Lizard-fags btfo

>> No.53803831

So, what rebellion are the Gatewatch going to join this time?

>> No.53803832

Because nobody wants to play as a nigger.

>> No.53803889
File: 1.02 MB, 1221x900, dinosaucers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Romping on Ixalan with Genghis Rex.

>> No.53803924
File: 60 KB, 1024x596, 0553386bedfe7a435932f6df477ab89a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

here, an actually well-designed feathered t-rex.

>> No.53804146

The fucking edge man.

>> No.53804162

Was it absolutely necessary to colour in the head orange to look like a chicken's beak?

>> No.53804203

You Saran wrapped people are just as bad as flat earthers.

>> No.53804232

Yeah. They had full plumage, not this silly mohawk thing.

>> No.53804279


>> No.53804284

That thing's adorable.

>> No.53804367

My personal gripe is the people who think that all dinosaurs had feathers, rather than just a small subset of them. Like, nigga, that brachiosaur ain't gonna have plumage.

Shit, even theropods have huge variances thanks to the wildly different sizes, climates and time periods they occupied.

>> No.53804438

>One, no? They were North African / West Asian



>> No.53804512

>chickens were dinosaurs
>dinosaurs were fish
Epic science my man.

>> No.53804519

I want this to be real.

I don't give a fuck, I want a giant, predatory tit in my earth history.

>> No.53804541


>> No.53804544
File: 173 KB, 926x821, 1496280880232.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That's literal clickbait propaganda. The three fully sequenced mummy genomes in the study clustered near various North African, Arabian and Levantine peoples - the exact same people you and your kind would call "sandniggers" or "dirty refugees".

>> No.53804552

Only in the US. They aren't black anywhere but in the US, that's the whole point of We Wuz Kangs.

>> No.53804568

It was a published fact since the 80s

>> No.53804586





>> No.53804627


I know Jurassic Park is wrong, but it doesn't make scaly dinosaurs any less aesthetic.

>> No.53804667

Reminder: The bigger the Dinosaur, the less feathers

T-Rex did not need feathers, in fact, if they had them they'd probably all die of heat exhaustion. Most recent studies point towards big shit like T-Rex not having feathers, while things like Raptors remain the same

>> No.53804777

Feathers do not work like fur and often actually diffuse heat, while TREX had more spars feathers it no doubt had some

>> No.53804810


tell that to Scientists

>> No.53804811

But not well known and widespread.

>> No.53804832

you think they would have done a little more research then that for their big budget movie

come on now

>> No.53804854

>expecting them to scour every obscure corner of the internet or every science website in the time of "dinosaurs can't see you if they stand still" facts.

>> No.53804881

The dino being ridden in OP pics is not a t-rex, ya know ? Too small frame, too long arms...

So, all those "but muh scaly T-rex" articles aren't currently relevant andn find something about scaly allosaurus.

>> No.53804885


you don't go into making a movie while not knowing shit

>> No.53804890
File: 1009 KB, 900x1535, Yi_qi_restoration.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>rather than a mammalian structure
Not completely mammalian.

>> No.53804908

That's being taken out of context

>> No.53804922
File: 18 KB, 100x235, Cockatrice.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>What is most of sci-fi

>> No.53804977
File: 57 KB, 800x536, 1441488841415.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That's a good joke anon

>> No.53805017


you dont go into making a good movie while not knowing shit

>> No.53805055

No, actually, you can. The problem is you've got to be absolutely earnest, genuine, and take it seriously. That way when your pile of Shit gets filmed, you're so earnest about it that it comes off as hilarious or brilliantly bad. That's basically what The Room is.

>> No.53805094

go outside anon, and see a bird for the first time apparently

>> No.53805151
File: 165 KB, 500x500, tumblr_m3fdzoSCX41ruk17ko2_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You want edge? I'll give you edge

>> No.53805217

Likes: Linkin Park/Mindless Self Indulgence
Dislikes: The Sun/Everyone in High School

>> No.53805285

That's a bearded vulture, though the colors have been entirely fucked. Bearded vultures aren't red, they're more brownish. But you want edge? OK. Bearded vultures have a diet that consists almost entirely of bone. Not bone marrow, entire bones, that they swallow and digest with stomach acid more corrosive than battery acid. And the brown coloration isn't natural either. They actually go out of their way to find pools of water rich in iron and bathe in them.

>> No.53805412
File: 107 KB, 500x272, 1485959520149.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>post yfw theropods get confirmed to have vocalisations similar to parrots

>> No.53805571

I believe I read once that T. rex likely wouldn't make loud roars, but rather low hissing sounds more in-line with an alligator.

>> No.53805627

>literally discover a full dino skin last year
>no feathers, looks like a croc
>people still assblasted evolution headcannon BTFO

Christians: 1 atheists: BTFOOOO

>> No.53805668

I laughed at this far more than i should have

>> No.53805719
File: 54 KB, 680x626, fbd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So, you agree dinosaurs existed?


>> No.53805770

The bible talks about them in genesis and Job heretic.

Its carbon dating rocks that take the place of bone thats wrong.

>> No.53805778

Sounds like somebody lost the naming rights to Murageanda, like Mongseng and Arkhos.

>> No.53805782

I don't understand your point. Yeah, some dinosaurs had feathers, some didn't. I don't think anyone's saying that all dinosaurs had feathers. What people are discussing us which dinosaurs had feathers and what they were like, mostly in terms of appearance.

>> No.53805800

If it were objectively true, then zero people would believe feathered dinosaurs look better.
Not 'a majority thinks scaled looks better', ALL of them.
It's subjective. People like different things. It's fine that you like scaled dinosaurs. It's fine that other people like feathered dinosaurs.

>> No.53805842

I thought that was because the artist interpreted "dead spirit-dragon" as "angel dragon"

>> No.53805844
File: 307 KB, 1281x730, latest[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Feathered dinos look awesome

>> No.53805849

I think what you mean to say is that The Bible talks vaguely about mythological creatures which you choose to interpret as dinosaurs.

>> No.53805858

Fair enough. I've seen too many bible thumpers deny dinosaurs as a concept, believing it to be a construct designed to specifically counter gods existence. Apples and oranges.

>> No.53805866

>Every tropical bird would just be green with that reasoning. It just doesn't hold.
Pretty sure there are more colors than green in the tropics.

>> No.53805873

That line in Jurassic Park about velociraptors looking like big turkey always cracks ne up now.

>> No.53805948
File: 113 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That's clearly an Utahraptor though, this is the new Velociraptor(TM) from the Jurassic Park IP.

>> No.53806006

And THAT is the fault of the US public education system, where what we are told about Africa is:
A) Egypt is there, and the only people talked about from Egypt are the pharaohs.
B) Black people are from Africa.
This is the entirety of what is discussed about Africa through 13 years of schooling

>> No.53806050


>> No.53806053

No it bloody well does not. Care to cite chapter and verse?

>> No.53806098
File: 199 KB, 1157x580, vilag-legnagyabb-madara[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Say that to their faces, giant birds will fuck you up.

>> No.53806139

He's probably talking about Behemoth, I've heard the argument before.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that the pic was a velociraptor, it just reminded me of that scene.

>> No.53806161

Things you don't want to agree on doesn't make them clickbait. You are just autistic, and retarded.

>> No.53806247

Presence of colour is vastly overated. If you'd take a random picture in the rainforest odds are you only see brownish and greenish colors.

The fancy colors are to attract mates, and are especially present in the tropics because there is plenty of food so natural selection becomes a little less important and sexual selection a little bit more. Parrots aren't bright-red for camouflag. Who would've thunk!

Large predators in the tropics, like large snakes for instance aren't brightly colored for instance. Because they fill a different niche than smaller paradise birds. A large dinosaurus would fill another niche than a small bird and therefore probably wouldn't be brightly colored unless there was like a shit ton of food lying around that didn't try to escape the moment they see the big-ass dinosaur.

But brightly coloured dinosaurs look cool so I'm on the fence desu.

>> No.53806259

You cucks keep forgetting Jurassic Park mixed FROGS with Dinosaur DNA.

Frogs aren't featherly, that's why they didn't have feathers. normally they would. Jurassic Park did it right.

>> No.53806291
File: 85 KB, 600x480, Creationism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I've personally never heard a Creationist argue against Dinosaurs existing. Probably because they realize the knowledge of them is so widespread denying it would make them look like wackjobs. They hilariously do the same thing with biological adaptation even though they still reject evolution, they just draw this arbitrary line where the first is "microevolution" which happens in species, and "macroevolution" which creates new species and they reject macroevolution.

Anyway, as for dinosaurs, I've seen more than a few arguments for their existence, and they tend to fail pretty hard. One of them is trying to explain that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. They say that this is shown because there are clear cave paintings of dinosaurs. Except when you look at what they present, it's just odd rock formations or drawings that could easily be of something else. Another one is how did humans survive if giant dinosaurs were around. One is that guys like T. Rex weren't carnivores, but herbivores, and that the teeth were used to eat vegetation. I've seen one guy point to the panda as proof about the teeth. Except he forgot that pandas just don't have incisors and canines, but molars as well, which what allow it to eat plants, and something the T. Rex lacks. And one hilarious argument I've seen is that humans were giants that could easily fight T. Rexes, due to the different atmosphere of the earth at the time.

>> No.53806348

I kinda wish they did more with the frog-dinosaur hybrids concept. But it seems like it was just a justification for the dinosaurs' breeding in the first movie and that was it.

>> No.53806360
File: 451 KB, 864x1350, 1497075814897.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Birdosaurs just keep getting better

>> No.53806429

It's brought up in World at least, that all of the dinosaurs are fakes and that's why they're so weird (like, say, top predators having toxic spit they don't need) so it's not that different to make a horrible chimera monstrosity intentionally.

>> No.53806450

In the latest film it is stated again.

>> No.53806460

I just hope they reintroduce the Dinosaur type. I HATE seeing them classified as Lizards now. Also, Dinosaur tribal please.

>> No.53806516

I guess I meant to say I wish they had something like a dinosaur with more frag traits than changing junk. Like, I dunno, a dinosaur with a long tongue to grab prey.

>> No.53806571

LIke the tyrannosaur in the first book?
Not froglong, but it managed to wrap around and start dragging one of the kids into its mouth. Would've ate the brat but then the tranqs kicked in.

>> No.53806592

>Aztecs actually have feathered snake in their mythology so feathered dinosaurs fits more with the theme.

Fair point.

>> No.53806655

You need to pull your head out of /pol/s ass

>> No.53806673

>>People still get assblasted over feathered dinosaurs because they can't accept that Jurassic Park was wrong.

You don't get it you smug fuck.

People aren't mad because they think science is wrong.

People are mad because feathered dinosaurs LOOK LIKE SHIT AND ARE NOT COOL.

I don't give a single fuck if it's accurate if you can't make it look good. Only thing accuracy gives you is ugly chicks.

>> No.53806697

>he has no argument
>he has no friends

>> No.53806700


Which dynasty dipshit.

Cause I'll tell you what, the Nubian dynasties sure as shit weren't European.

>> No.53806769

Rt is literally there to sell empowering narratives to western autists/boomers

>> No.53806782

>I think the likely apperance of real dinosaurs looks LAAAAAME and that's a good reason to stop learning about them
Science doesn't care what you think looks cool, your monsters never existed, dinosaurs were always animals like any other, deal with it

>> No.53806833

He's talking about the aesthetics of feathered vs. non-feathered dinosaurs in FANTASY ART.

>> No.53806871

Oh, well when I see feathered dinos i see land eagles, so his argument doesn't work on me

>> No.53806896

It's confirmed! I'm just hoping for a big snarly green one for EDH.

>> No.53806917


>> No.53806932

For me there's room for all designs depending on the usage, tail draggers, scaly juggernauts, overgrown lizards, and land eagles alike

>> No.53807034

Fuck yes! Fantasy ought to draw a LOT more from shit like Monster Hunter whenever they use dinosaurs, and not just "Oh, hey, dinosaurs and humans, that's cool."

>> No.53807061

They didn't have actual feathers back then, just wierd quill-like proto-feathers.

>> No.53807087

They did do a lot of research. They actually gathered researchers together to advise on the film. And while the feathered fossils were known, it was actually the collaboration on the film that led to a modern understanding of dinosaur locomotion and comparative anatomy that removed any doubts about 'dinos=birds' in the community.

So while not visually accurate in the film. The film advanced the field.

>> No.53807097

>you roam the jungle, looking for your lost friend
>calling him repeatedly
>you know somewhere he's doing the same
>then suddenly you hear him calling you
>you run towards him
>it was a carnosaur mimicking his voice all along

>> No.53807130
File: 1.11 MB, 825x873, 1451728556295.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.53807154

Counterpoint: Feathered dinosaurs look cool.

>> No.53807242
File: 39 KB, 414x355, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That shit looks like an Alebrije

>> No.53807244

This is the set boys, legendary wurm now.

>> No.53807269

Yeah but they dont look like they belong in a Pride Parade

>> No.53807330

I've actually been thinking about making a giant wurm-planeswalker. Still unsure of the mechanics though. Wurm tokens, obv., maybe noncreature permanent destruction?

>> No.53807389
File: 66 KB, 640x640, 1169150_616164068536568_1360430061_n[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>le ebin "WHY IS THERE COLOR" meme
Kill yourselves my men.

>> No.53807409

+1: Put a wurm creature from your hand into play. Return it to your hand at the end of the turn. This ability may be played as an instant.
-2: Destroy target creature. You gain life equal to the destroyed creature's toughness.
-8: Naputais, the World Eater becomes a 20/20 wurm creature with indestructible. It's still a planeswalker.

>> No.53807423

Literally all of those live in a desert though

>> No.53807542
File: 1.04 MB, 290x189, 1420055326376.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.53807546

Like 30 posts up.

>> No.53807700

Is there a link or card I'm not seeing?

>> No.53807748

That's not how you use ellipses, you tiny sack of shit. Do European schools just try to teach you little fuckers how to fail at English?

>> No.53807896

As much as I like feathered dinosaurs, I feel this may be the single best way to do it.

>> No.53807906

Sounds like they'd be a flying type with a bunch of poison, metal, electric, and ghost moves splashed in.

>> No.53807970

>assblasted because his shit tastes are going out of style

Stay irrelevant, you retarded old fart.

>> No.53807977

They look like gay parrots.

>> No.53808010

>those arms
lmaoing at his life

>> No.53808021

To be fair highschool kids are aweful. It's not inherently edgy to dislike them.

>> No.53808066

I actually am 5004% more hyped for this block knowing that it's renamed Muraganda.

>> No.53808078

Metal as fuck.

>> No.53808220

There's no proof adult t-rex had feathers.

>> No.53808400


Six days ago, so very recent. However, despite the title, the results were inconclusive. And the researchers admit that even if T. Rex was mostly scaly, it could still have feathers on its back.

In other words, we still don't know for sure T. rex had feathers or not.

>> No.53808475

>Thinking a tyrannosaur hunting you down while doing this isn't terrifying.

>> No.53808872

Does anyone even know how an alligator speaks like?

Thought so, nerds.

>> No.53808922


Creature type: Serpent

Will be funny.

>> No.53808924

I can smell the Tyrannosaur on the first video while the monster its hiding under the shelf. What the fuck is that thing anyway? Is it possessed?

>> No.53809094

Cockatoos mimics sounds and voices it heard though it's not perfect.

>> No.53809435

Eh, not so much a fan of the first, I try not to incorporate tribal into my planeswalkers. Second isn't what I meant. I'm not sure about a perma-Gideon for the ult. Sorry. Also, what are this thing's colors? First ability is Red, second is Black, third is mostly White, though I guess it could be any color.

>> No.53809492

Green, of course. What else would a wurm be?
Also, the first ability doesn't have haste, so it isn't really too red.

>> No.53809659

I like to imagine that it's much the case in the film. They breed dinosaurs, they're feathered, so they re-engineer them to be without feathers so that they "look right."

>> No.53809660

I said the first ability is Red because I can only think of Red cards that give you a creature temporarily.

And I guess the -2 then is based on Engulfing Slagwurm, right? Eh, I get what you're going for, but I'm just not a fan of the idea. Maybe use Monstrous Onslaught for removal instead?

>> No.53809797

The feathers fit the Aztec theme anyways, Quetzalcoatl was a feathered serpent and that snakes and scales motif recurs throughout their art

>> No.53810405

A t-rex with that much feathering would overheat and die.

>> No.53810438

>Thinks "arrogant" is the same as "ignorant"
>Reinterpreting him not fanboying Spielberg to hating Jews

You're a fucking dumbass.

>> No.53810475

well they specifically call this out in the new movie

>> No.53810590

Better than adding random fat rolls and neon pink fur when there's no proof of them.

>> No.53810621

Who cares, that T-Rex looks cool

>> No.53810645

>Several ton creature covered in insulating feathers
Baked chicken

>> No.53810740

You mean what most people would.

>> No.53810859

t. it

>> No.53810882

Behemoth is either an aurochs or a rhino.

>> No.53810932

Or a unique entity not intended to be a traditional earthly beast.

>> No.53810972

Nostalgiafaggotry is worse than /pol/ faggotry.

>> No.53811008


Actually, Jurassic Park had a dinosaur expert named Jack Horner working on set to make sure everything was accurate- except the shit they wanted to change. And Crichton was super into science shit and did a ton of research too. It's important to remember when the book/movie takes place in terms of the science- it's not 93 in the story, necessarily. It's the 80's. And while feathered dinosaurs were being discovered and scientists knew about them, normal folk sure as hell didn't.

And they weren't making realistic dinosaurs for science. They were making an amusement park for normal people. So, no feathers!!

>> No.53811134

Stop trying to inject /pol/ into everything you mong. Mentioned /pol/ should be a bannable offense in all boards.

>> No.53811144

Is is true that Jurassic Park finally got people to think of T. rex's having a more horizontal stance instead of a more vertical stance we still see in stuff like Godzilla?

>> No.53811182

I think it was. There was a definite shift in toys, certainly.

>> No.53811245

I meant that the original thing being described before several layers of exaggeration, not what you're meant to think of while reading the text.

>> No.53811266

Personally I'm a biologist and religious.
I don't believe that neither evolution nor dinosaurs discredit the Bible or vise-versa.

>> No.53811287

They both look like shit. Seriously, though, what is going on with those fucking retarded spikes on the back and head?

>> No.53811289

Hmmm... I'd think so since I was born around the time the movie came out and there was definitely a shift like, partway through my childhood after the movie came out

>> No.53811342
File: 74 KB, 1024x600, secretary-bird-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I honestly don't see why so many people have a problem with feathers on dinosaurs. Feathers add so much potential from a visual standpoint. Instead of a bald, sleek, colorless lizard (which still existed and are just as cool for the sake of juxtaposition with the giant birds), you have all these opportunities to fuck with the silhouette. Crests, plumage, color patterns, etc.

Birds go fucking nuts with their feathers, theres so much you can do with them. The biggest problem I have with it is the artists that aren't clever or creative enough to draw a raptor with a gigantic robe of peacock tail feathers.

>> No.53811359

Doesn't evolution kinda get in the way of the idea that god created the world in six days and the flood that killed all the animals that weren't on Noah's ark?

>> No.53811380

I don't mind feathers on the smaller, birdlike dinos. I have issues with shit like T-rexes having feathers
Especially on the legs since even now most birds lack those

>> No.53811420

That bird has pink eyeshadow and looks like a girl. That's why.

>> No.53811437

I've always been of the opinion that god exists outside of time so a "Day" for him could be billions of years.
And if you look at the bible, it DOES kinda get the order shit was made in right.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the omnipresent flood story has something to do with the melting glaciers from the end of the last ice age

>> No.53811442

Its a secretary, she is a lady and you will show her the respect she deserves!

>> No.53811448
File: 502 KB, 878x1297, nQuw2vI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You say that like there's something wrong with being fucking fabulous

>> No.53811456

People don't like dinosaurs looking like fat songbirds.

>> No.53811462

There is. They look stupid.

>> No.53811480

speak merely for yourself. I love colors, I'm not an edgy teen anymore.

I love feathers, I'm not a dragonkin furry cuck anymore.

>> No.53811509
File: 333 KB, 1200x1200, b8a6e9ea9c04f9ee76307e947dc44435.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So don't draw them as fat songbirds. Feathers and cool body shapes are not mutually exclusive

>> No.53811515

>The only two choices are being a Pride Parade or being edgy
No. Stop defending yourself in such a retarded way.

Everyone does, though.

>> No.53811525
File: 1.00 MB, 1100x739, lammergeier.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>implying a raptor with feathers like a lammergeier wouldn't be imposing as fuck

>> No.53811528

>Everyone does, though.
which was the entire point of the post you were replying to

>> No.53811547


The feathers match the Aztec aesthetic in my opinion

Like I get that you man children might be attached to that nostalgic classic scaly T. rex look, but objectively there's nothing special about it, the feathers are no worse or better

To be fair though, feathered dinosaurs is just informed speculation, not fact

>> No.53811552
File: 154 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>there are people that still hate feathers in this fucking thread
Kill yourself.

>> No.53811589

>WotC releases Tomb of Annihilation D&D and MTG dinosaurs at the same time
>hires artists in bulk to make Savage Lands that time forgot art

I'm ok with this

>> No.53811594

Why would a predator be stupid, showy colors?

>> No.53811599

No it wasn't. See >>53811342 , the end of his post asks for fucking peacock feathers.

>> No.53811614

Because the flora was blueish back then, there was more oxygen in the air and the atmosphere was also different, radiating different lights

>> No.53811630

>Fluorescent blue and bright red
Anything could see that thing approaching.

>> No.53811636


To attract mates

>> No.53811643
File: 58 KB, 640x480, sddefault[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

When everyone is colorful, you fit right in.

>> No.53811651



Were you under the impression that t-rexes hunt by stealth?

>> No.53811662

Nothing would be.

You don't go for attracting mates over stalking prey.

The fuck makes you think those velociraptors were t-rex?

>> No.53811664

On the first day he made light and darkness, on the fourth day he made stars, sun, and moon. But stars make light. On the first day, did he just invent the concept of light and darkness, but not the things that produce light? Well, that doesn't make sense, since the Bible says after every day there's an evening and a morning, which would be really weird without light, especially when the Bible acknowledges that with the creation of the sun comes the creation of days. And what exactly is the firmament?

And I'm not very familiar with how ice ages work, but I don't think they'd melt fast enough to create the sudden, worldwide flood Noah witnessed.

>> No.53811690


Sorry I should've followed the replies, was thinking of the Dinos in the OP

That said, I still don't think velociraptors hunted by stealth, pretty sure they just ran really fast in groups and rounded up shit to kill

>> No.53811712

Look at predators that hunt similarly these days. Lions and wolves. Those do use stealth to get close enough for their tactics.

>> No.53811721
File: 41 KB, 640x360, latest[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Nothing would be.
Which was my point.

>> No.53811738

>Look at predators that hunt similarly these days.

Also animals today are maximized for efficiency. Dinosaurs were not. Otherwise they wouldn't grow as big as they grew.

>> No.53811739

It depends on being a Biblical Literalist or not.

Being religious doesn't require you to believe that all twenty different creation stories happened exactly as described.

>> No.53811752

>Magic finally does dinosaurs again
>OP Complains.

... Meh?

>> No.53811763

Tigers hunt by stealth?

While being bright orange?


>> No.53811774

Your point is mistaken. None of those predators are going to be brightly colored like that.

Sooo? Coloration matters even more to theropods, who probably had color vision. A zebra can get away with being stark black and white because its predators can't see most colors, but a dinosaur with bright coloration can't rely on simple shadow/silhouette breaking and needs to worry about colors blending in.

>Maximized for efficiency
Citation needed.

>Otherwise they wouldn't grow as big
They grew so big because of huge amounts of oxygen and an environment that supported it. You had huge mammals too until humans killed them off.

Read the first part.

>> No.53811824

I guess it's because religion just seems alien to me, but I've never understood the point of picking and choosing what to believe in. I just don't understand why someone would accept any of the claims if they didn't accept all of them. At that point, it becomes pretty clear that even the adherents don't accept the religion as being as true as the religion says it is, so why bother with any of it?

>> No.53811905
File: 746 KB, 1024x577, level_40_gallimimus_by_jakethedino-darlxg7[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

yes they would

>> No.53811911

Great arguing, sparklesaur.

>> No.53811936

And that's what's wrong with religion nowadays. 90% of the people might as welll not call themselves a member of their religion because they don't follow any of the actual rules. Religious lines don't mean shit now that you can just choose what parts you will follow. Shit or get off the pot.

>> No.53811938


Because there's a long history of respectable and intelligent people who have taken part in religion, and found it to benefit them, not to mention all the normal ancestors that partook

That's all it is, submitting to something greater without understanding. It seems weird because in the modern world we are taught to be as independent as possible, everybody is supposed to make up their own minds and have an opinion on every little thing.

The result is a bunch of retards spouting off bullshit on Facebook. I'm not personally religious but maybe it's not so bad for people to just accept shit they are told

>> No.53811969

I dunno, a lack of literalism was really popular in the Catholic church for fucking ages, with only brief periods of literalism.

>> No.53811972
File: 169 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault[3].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Your just mad that dinosaurs are actually fun instead of grim dark shit like in the early 90s

>> No.53811982

That is spirituality dude. All religion require you to partake in rituals ( of some sort) and life paths in addition to the belief. Hence why there are different religions. Do what you want but those of us who actually work had to follow the tenants hate people that are only a member of the faith by title.

>> No.53811990

>The only way anon has fun is with neon colors

>> No.53812024


Not sure I understand where our supposed disagreement lies

>> No.53812065

They probably believe in religion because their parents taught it to them, but they aren't really practicing because it doesn't have any baring on their day to day lives.

I'm not an atheist because I'm taught to be as independent as possible, I'm an atheist mostly just because there's no proof for any of it. And I see no reason to believe in, well, anything until I'm given some decent evidence. Part of me can see objectively why people would want to believe in something without proof if they thought it was good, but I just can't bring myself to do that.

>> No.53812071
File: 119 KB, 1168x782, tanycolagreus-40[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

More fun than with monocolored shite that's for sure.

A ine color party will never be as fun as a multicolored one. Specially when the multicolor one fits the tropical setting

>> No.53812077
File: 257 KB, 576x3040, 20110630.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's often because they believe what the Bible is trying to teach is more important than what it literally says.

The Bible's not a single work after all. It's a collection of stories over a millennium and more, many from before widespread literacy so being passed down orally (which was referred to as mythos by the Greeks, referring to information given by word of mouth, which is where we get the term myth)

The first five books of the Bible (aka the Torah or Pentateuch) have generally been agreed to come from several different sources, generally given as the Jawist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist (guess which book they're mostly behind), and the Priestly source.

Which of course means there's going to be disagreements. It's like the four gospels will tell different stories.

But you can also see what the authors were trying to tell you by what they wrote. Which some would see as the important thing.

Let's take, for example, one of my favourite books: Job.
Ultimately it comes down to Theodicy and the Problem of Evil. Job is a character, a tool to use to demonstrate the author's answer to that (which could be said to be: God is far greater than we can understand, and well, it's sometimes bad shit just happens)

Now, sure, this can raise questions about "well, how can you say this story happened, or this one didn't?" Which is a question asked by both literalists and disbelievers.
And if you're looking for an answer.

... well, I'll defer to Job's author, shit just happens.
I'm not skilled enough to provide an answer. I'd just say try to be a good person and follow what seems right to you.

>> No.53812090

Someone already addressed that earlier.

>> No.53812139
File: 47 KB, 640x480, sddefault[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

who won the argument back then?

>> No.53812147

The last guy who brought up points, which wasn't you.

>> No.53812172
File: 218 KB, 1675x1006, yutyrannus-40[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

wouldn't be asking if I was there!

>> No.53812182


We are all taught to be as independent as possible.

>atheist because there's no proof

This reasoning is exactly what I'm taking about. For thousands of years the vast majority of people gave not a single fuck about "proof" for their spiritual and philosophical and moral and cultural beliefs. Your mom and dad believe it, the people in your community that you respect believe it, your fellow soldiers believe it, why question it?

Requiring other people to "prove" things to you isn't unreasonable but it may turn out that it's not healthy for most people when it comes to philosophy, morals, and religion

And I'm not even criticizing you here, like you are making "the wrong decision", so to speak. I realize that once you have reached the point where you require evidence and proof for religion, you're too far gone, there's no going back to the stage of respectful obedience to traditional beliefs, and you didn't choose to become this way. It's just a fact of modern society

>> No.53812231

Is this nowadays pretty much since 400 CE?
Since even at that time, Saint Augustine was interpreting much of Genesis as metaphor, and urging that reason be used while reading it.

Or even earlier to Origen (~184-~254 CE)? "What is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, "planted a paradise eastward in Eden," and set in it a visible and palpable "tree of life," of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of "good and evil" by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name?"

Biblical Literalism and Biblical Inerrancy are a much more recent problem.

>> No.53812243


>> No.53812268
File: 280 KB, 1280x964, 1280px-Goshawk_dove4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I don't understand why artists feel the need to depict predatory dinosaurs like Velociraptor in bright, eye-catching colors.

It would make much more sense for them to have drab browns and blacks and camouflage patterns, like a hawk or eagle.

>> No.53812276

You know instead of bible bashing atheists I prefer a different approach.
I refer them to Pascal's wager.

It pretty perfectly describes why no proof doesn't really work amazingly. After all we have no proof that there is no afterlife, nor is there proof there is one.

>> No.53812291

It's cause they're artists and they can not into common sense

>> No.53812294

>For thousands of years the vast majority of people gave not a single fuck about "proof"
Yeah, and they understood jackshit about the world around them.

>> No.53812325

And just think, less than a thousand years ago there was an Eagle with claws as big as a Tigers.

>> No.53812345

>your fellow soldiers believe it

>> No.53812355

You act like that's gone away and not gotten worse

>> No.53812371

Dude I'm not taking that wager, I'd have to abide to the mutually exclusive rules of dozens of religions since each one claims them and only them figured out the way to get to an afterlife that's nice. Somebody post that expanded table, please

>> No.53812379

But then it just seems like you're being selectively skeptical about things. Like, if you're skeptical about the creation myth, why wouldn't you be skeptical about Jesus or God? Again, it's just choosing what to believe in based on whether or not you like it personally.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not understanding what you're trying to get across here. Are you trying to say that I should accept something without proof if others accept it without proof? I mean, if that's the case, I can just respond with the classic "If all of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?"

Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy, it only works if the only two outcomes are heaven and hell. For example, there could be nothing after death and the atheist and the Christian both cease to exist after they die. Or they could both go to heaven, because it turns out God's a huge hippie who let's everyone into his cloud paradise. Or maybe the both of them end up in Hel because they didn't die in battle and get whisked off to Valhalla. There's as much proof for every single one of these outcomes as there is for Pascal's Wager: None. Until I have evidence that any of these places exist, why would I worry about any of them?

>> No.53812478

I sure do wanna participate in human sacrifice because grandpa did.

>> No.53812569

By following a religion, any relgion, you have taken steps to improving your afterlife. You have taken initiative and moved yourself forward on the grand scheme of things.

You have no promise of any afterlife, but truthfully that doesn't matter much. Positive movement even if wrong, is preferable to being neutral or negative.

Following rules builds will which strengthens the mind. Certain rules, like no intercouse out of wedlock spare you the risk of STDs. Rules are good in the grand scheme of things. The important part is to pick a religion with the best rules.

I must suggest picking a religion that benifits others, as if there is an afterlife you don't want to spend it with people you pissed off.

Following a religion gives purpose and allows you to improve yourself. Whatever form this takes I don't care.

>> No.53812681

>if there is an afterlife you don't want to spend it with people you pissed off.
Pfft, are you joking? If there is an afterlife, I hope I end up with all the religious nuts I've pissed off so I could laugh at them forever. The first time I see you in the afterlife, I'm going to make damn sure I bring up Pascal's Wager.

But seriously, you sound like a brainwashed cultist. You talk about not needing proof, well let's run through a thought experiment. Let's say I held a loaded gun to your head and was about to pull the trigger before you asked me why I wanted to kill you. And I just say that I think killing you will secure me a place in heaven because I read it in an old book. Something tells me you'd be objecting to that.

>> No.53812708

>Following a religion gives purpose and allows you to improve yourself.
Dude, I make my own purpose for living, and I can improve myself just fine without spreading my ass to Allah or telling God how awesome he is.

>> No.53812719

Jesus Christ. If that's what a brainwashed cultist sounds like to you then I can do naught but pity you

>> No.53812732

Why have athiests become so touchy recently? You do realize that you're starting to sound exactly like the christians you mocked 5 years ago, right?

>> No.53812754

Hegelian dialectic.

The atheists now are the Christians of five years ago, based on the cultural shift, much like how sjw are the right wing dicks of 15 years ago. It's always trendy to be the antithesis, synthesis and moderation is enlightenment

>> No.53812791

I love the hawk is just dumbfounded the other turkey is trying something.
>Did you not just see what I did to this fucker? I will shred you.

>> No.53812796

He wrote "Shekelberg", not exactly a huge jump

>> No.53812799

What do you mean recently, atheists have been booty-blasted whiners for over a century. It's just leaked out into the public now.

>> No.53812808

Or he could've done it just as a general insult. Same as we call everyone a faggot on this site.

>> No.53812826

"Faggot" is barely an insult here at this point. You're thinking of "Nigger"

>> No.53812842

We do both senpai. Neither is an insult.

>> No.53812856
File: 222 KB, 1289x701, 29cffb4daefa00584732d44e7c3cc7af.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

he posted a DNA analysis of a mummy. you're the dumbass here

>> No.53812871

>Damn, we can't refute anything he said. Let's throw insults and question his character instead instead.

>> No.53812873

He'd have had an argument if he'd give a little bit and admit that Arabs/Semites are the most closely related race to Europeans.

>> No.53812877

Hey, with all due respect, religion does not have a monopoly on self-improvement. I will concede that it is a viable option, but you can't be talking about it like it's the only choice. Anyone can help others, build discipline and make the world better without religion as a guideline or afterlife as a reward.

And I do believe you're saying this with every good intention, but managing to convince someone to take part in this using that argument is akin to deception, and I don't think anyone who was deceived into a belief system will be welcomed in any afterlife.

>> No.53812939

for me I tend to lean to a splash of color, at least on the males but otherwise nature colors

>> No.53813554
File: 24 KB, 369x434, 1425895027416.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

WB - Ankylosaurs, Ceratopsids
WU - Hadrosaurs
WR - Pteranodons, Gallimimus, Tyrannosaurus
WG - Sauropods
BU - Sarcosuchus, Baryonyx, Spinosaurus
BR - Utahraptor, Gigantoraptor, Carcharodontosaurus
BG - Therizinosaurus, Deinocheirus, Stygimoloch
UR - Troodon, Archeopteryx
UG - Plesiosaurs, Icthyosaurs, Mosasaurs
RG - Giganotosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus

>> No.53813598

But muh fedora memes

>> No.53813620

Dino raptors are historically RG unless they're also zombified

>> No.53814519

I kinda like feathered Dinosaurs, why does it upset some people so much?

>> No.53814538

>Fancy songbird colors
>Look fat
>Look skeevy
>People don't like birds

>> No.53814678


Do you understand fear anon?
Do you understand what it means to be utterly nothing in the wider scheming of the infinite universe?
Would you not deny and spout nonsense instead of confronting that you are, in fact, nothing?

>> No.53814782

He didn't, I didn't, many didn't.

>> No.53815060
File: 98 KB, 800x533, FIG-KAI-7634_10[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Any sufficiently large animal in a hot climate is naked: Elephants, Rhinocerouseses, Hippopotamus, Paraceratherium, etc..

Why does everyone think large Dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus had feathers? Wouldn't that be way too hot? I don't doubt the idea that their babies probably had fuzz or thin coats, and I think it's highly possible the males probably had garrish or striking colours and patterns to attract females, but them having big feathery bird plumes seems kind of...unreasonable?

Also they eat meat.
They'd get gristle, blood, and bits of food in basically all their nooks n' crannies.

>> No.53815236
File: 109 KB, 1600x718, DeathBirdTyrannosaurusRex.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>he doesn't like feathered dinos
what a faggot

>> No.53815246

>Also they eat meat.
>They'd get gristle, blood, and bits of food in basically all their nooks n' crannies.
Like every bird of prey ever?

>> No.53815295

>people don't like birds

Who the fuck dislikes birds?

>> No.53815313

You'd think that, but fur and feathers actually serve to trap air closer to the body where it has a temperature-moderating effect. This came up recently with that viral image of the shaved husky: that fur is also how the poor thing helps keep itself cool.

Or, "helped".

>> No.53815317
File: 643 KB, 678x653, 1435374472139.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>synthesis and antithesis
0/10 see me after class

>> No.53815364


>> No.53815448

So feathered dinosaurs Have gone from childhood ruining to fucking awesome.

>> No.53815569

You ever seen an eagles talons, they probably got fuckin stabbed

>> No.53815653

To be fair its not far off a shaved mandrill...

>> No.53816168

Speak for yourself, dude. As a religious though only noderately observant person, I'm chill with the observant, non-observant, and atheistic alike. Apostates from my religion (as in converting to another one, not just dropping it) bug me but not in a "kill the heretic" way.

>> No.53816431

Honestly if you kill me I could care less, I either don't exist anymore in which case whatever, or an afterlife exists. I have at least done something about that.

If I end up in anouther religions hell, I at least tried. Honestly hell cannot be as bad as this life. If it is worst I'll adapt.

Being an atheist due to lack of proof is kind of a quitters religion. Science itself cannot disprove or prove anything. We know so little about the universe that it doesn't matter.

As for finding a purpose, I said I could care less about how you do this, and I really don't care. I recommend a purpose that furthers humanity, because i find that gives the most fulfillment in the long run

>> No.53816505

>Honestly hell cannot be as bad as this life. If it is worst I'll adapt.
That's not how hell works at all

>> No.53816777

I mean I was going to end up there anyways might as well be positive about it.

Some Hells are much better than this life.

>> No.53817698

Incomplete knowledge is still better than no knowledge at all. Science can provide us with answers. Not all the answers, but some of them. The only thing religion can provide is a random guess, not even an educated one.

>> No.53817847

>I could care less
Hey, twattycakes. That means you do care

>> No.53818016

Religion isn't for seeking knowledge, it's like art: it's meant to reflect our innate thoughts, feelings and symbolic understanding of the world around us, but instead of being the product of an individual it's the product of an entire society.

>> No.53818195

No, that's a culture. One problem with religion is that they all think they contain the secret truth of the universe. Which is why science and relgion are always in conflict, because in the face of science, relgion fails to provide even a single shred of evidence as to why its beliefs are true. Don't forget too that religion has existed as a political entity probably for as long as it has been around, so sometimes religious leaders would suppress the truth if the truth was in conflict with what they taught. Relgion is just willful ignorance combined with wishful thinking.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.