3
Joseph
October 24, 2011 at 7:23 am
Hey, rabbits have huge hind limbs and short fore-limbs. T-Rex has huge hind limbs and short fore-limbs- therefor, using evotard “logic” of comparison anatomy, rabbits and T-Rex are related.
3.1
bornagain77
October 24, 2011 at 7:28 am
Joseph, there could be a peer-reviewed paper in that for you.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/largest-ever-fossil-rabbit-found-not-in-cambrian/comment-page-1/#comment-405514
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A paper describing you two would easily pass peer review by stating just one word: IDiots!
There's a lot more to comparative anatomy than just the length/size of bones, you brainless dweebs. If anything, it's baraminology (what joe-boi the muslim creationist believes in and pushes) that would likely place T. rex and rabbits into the same 'baramin' based on a comparison of just the differences in length/size of the bones of the fore and hind limbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
Oh, and batshitcrazy77, you might want to use more reliable sources for your drivel. For example, Cave Bears were not "20 feet long", Dire Wolves were not "5 feet high", and Panthera leo spelaea was not "11.5 feet long" (minus the tail). Is 77 your IQ?
And what the fuck is your point in spewing this crap?:
"However there was actually an incredible variety of giant creatures, incomprehensible by our perception of animals in the current world."
What exactly is "incomprehensible" about there being large animals in the past? Have you ever heard of a Blue Whale by any chance? It exists in "the current world", dumbass, and it's a LOT bigger than any of the animals you listed. Your "perception", of everything, is extremely limited and deranged, to put it mildly.
Joseph
October 24, 2011 at 7:23 am
Hey, rabbits have huge hind limbs and short fore-limbs. T-Rex has huge hind limbs and short fore-limbs- therefor, using evotard “logic” of comparison anatomy, rabbits and T-Rex are related.
3.1
bornagain77
October 24, 2011 at 7:28 am
Joseph, there could be a peer-reviewed paper in that for you.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/largest-ever-fossil-rabbit-found-not-in-cambrian/comment-page-1/#comment-405514
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A paper describing you two would easily pass peer review by stating just one word: IDiots!
There's a lot more to comparative anatomy than just the length/size of bones, you brainless dweebs. If anything, it's baraminology (what joe-boi the muslim creationist believes in and pushes) that would likely place T. rex and rabbits into the same 'baramin' based on a comparison of just the differences in length/size of the bones of the fore and hind limbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
Oh, and batshitcrazy77, you might want to use more reliable sources for your drivel. For example, Cave Bears were not "20 feet long", Dire Wolves were not "5 feet high", and Panthera leo spelaea was not "11.5 feet long" (minus the tail). Is 77 your IQ?
And what the fuck is your point in spewing this crap?:
"However there was actually an incredible variety of giant creatures, incomprehensible by our perception of animals in the current world."
What exactly is "incomprehensible" about there being large animals in the past? Have you ever heard of a Blue Whale by any chance? It exists in "the current world", dumbass, and it's a LOT bigger than any of the animals you listed. Your "perception", of everything, is extremely limited and deranged, to put it mildly.
