I had a real good laugh at your reply to me. You said, "The only dinosaurs alive today are birds" When I show my 2 year old daughter a picture of a dinosaur or a bird she never gets them mixed up whatsoever. If a 2 year old can tell the difference between birds and dinosaurs I'm sure anyone can. It is strange that people say birds evolved from dinosaurs, then put archeopteryx (which they say existed at the time of dinosaurs) as proof yet fail to mention that fully formed birds have been discovered that are claimed to be 70 million years older than archeopteryx.
Is there anyone in the world who believes in the THEORY (funny how it has called a theory and not a fact for about a century and a half) of evolution who can show everyone all the millions of intermediate fossil species that should be there if dinosaurs really evolved into birds, I think not. They will say what Darwin said in the 1800s, "There are missing links that will be found" A cop out if you ask me. Out of all the millions of 'missing links' out there I wonder why not one has been found. Did compsognathus become a sparrow, tyranosaurus a crow and brachiosaurus an ostrich?
I didn't say komodo dragons are dinosaurs. What I said was, "Dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was coined. Even today there are large lizards that are well known the monitor lizards on Komodo island, are these not called dragons?" What I meant was that ancient people who say dinosaurs would call them dragons just the same as people who first saw the lizards on komodo island called them dragons.
You also said, "I can show you lots of pictures from ancient times of unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, and creatures that are half goat & half human- which means you believe that these creatures actually exist too, right?" To have lots of these pictures must mean that you believe they exist? Otherwise you wouldn't have them, right? As I have not mentioned any creatures like this I fail to see the relevance in you mentioning them, Are you serious about learning truth or are you arbitrarily posting these comments to antagonize?
If evolutionists are right then the coelacanth should have evolved legs as they say and became an amphibian. This didn't happen as there are coelacanths alive, well and unevolved today showing absolutely no inclination or desire to move onto land. What would make them right about the dinosaur-bird link?