WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar

When Science...

32 Favourites
53 Comments
1K Views
        Whiskerface's comeback to a horrible, horrible saying!!!  Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!  
        Enjoy, my fluffy supporters!!!  :D 
        (Don't worry, I know based off of the picture, the writing wouldn't be that thick.  ;)
        Pen drawing colored in DeviantART Muro.  Framing and typed words created on PowerPoint.  
        (Sorry about the handwriting and a not well constructed composition.  Sweating a little... ) 






          (Though unlikely, just in case anybody's confused... It is in reference to this.  And this.  And all that other stuff.  :)
Published:
© 2014 - 2021 WhiskerfaceRumpel
Comments52
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
March90's avatar
Matter of opinion. :D (Big Grin)
But honestly, as someone who likes the JP/sci-fi/old theories of dinosaurs more, people who cannot accept the fact that our knowledge about dinosaurs keep changing and say that science ruined everything, really need some serious wake up call from their fantasies and get real.
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
*nods in heavy agreement*  
Sia-Mon's avatar
I hate that "science ruined dinosaurs" thing

In fact science made dinosaurs better!
Sia-Mon's avatar
Feathered raptors are way cooler than bald ones
Lediblock2's avatar
Eh, I'm neutral. Does a T-rex need integuement to eat you in a single bite? Hell no. A Triceratops doesn't need quills on its butt to gore you, and a Deinonychus can kill you with or without feathers.
acepredator's avatar
But the T. rex and Deinonychus would overheat/freeze before it killed you. 
Lediblock2's avatar
....What did scales ever do to you, dude? A T-rex won't instantly collapse without feathers.
acepredator's avatar
But it won't live as long
Sekley's avatar
There's more to nature than tooth and claw. There's color, beauty, and diversity. Dangerousness shouldn't be the key thing nature should be recognized for, this isn't the 19th century.
Lediblock2's avatar
That's not the point. My point is that scaled and feathered dinosaurs are equally awesome.
Sekley's avatar
Well it sure doesn't seem that way.
Lediblock2's avatar
Tell me, does a T-rex need feathers to be an apex predator? Would a living, breathing, tail-dragging retrosaur not leave you in just as much awe as a living feathered dinosaur?
View all replies
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
In opinion, I certainly agree. 
sagittariussigner's avatar
Lol ! There are such things as peoples who are preoccupied by modern life and jurassic park movies saying "science ruins everything". Those persons are anyway blatant and stupid, as well, believe any make-believe stuffs !
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
:lol: Right you are!  :) 
ForvenN20's avatar
Feather deniers can deny all they want, some dinosaurs had (and still have) feathers ;P

They look much more natural and 'right' to me with feathers anyway, not to mention the facts that all non-huge warm-blooded animals need some sort of insulation. So take your pick, feathers or fur? xD
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
Oh my word, you're so right.  The main reason I got back into dinosaurs was because of the feathers, which caused them to look so much more real.  Thank you!  :lol: 
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
Ha, ha!  Perfect! 
Astrosaurus-Art's avatar
most people still think that dilophosaurus had retractable venom-spitting frills ._.
9Weegee's avatar
many dinosaurs have the chance of having frills (and some still do like Birds of Paradise) and there are hypothetical venom glands found in Sinornithosaurus, dilophosaurus may not have had them, but other dinos have the possibility.
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
          :(  No, I disagree!   Hopefully, some day they'll realize the truth! 
Megalotitan's avatar
:icontomozaurus: even says that he saw people confusing Velociraptor with Dilophosaurus :(
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In