2 hours, 55 minutes ago
 |
Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! |
Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
|
2 hours, 55 minutes ago
|
|
By RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM, Associated Press Writer
BOMBAY, India - U.S. and Indian scientists said Wednesday they have discovered a new carnivorous dinosaur species in India after finding bones in the western part of the country.
|
|
The new dinosaur species was named Rajasaurus narmadensis, or "Regal reptile from the Narmada," after the Narmada River region where the bones were found.
The dinosaurs were between 25-30 feet long, had a horn above their skulls, were relatively heavy and walked on two legs, scientists said. They preyed on long-necked herbivorous dinosaurs on the Indian subcontinent during the Cretaceous Period at the end of the dinosaur age, 65 million years ago.
"It's fabulous to be able to see this dinosaur which lived as the age of dinosaurs came to a close," said Paul Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. "It was a significant predator that was related to species on continental Africa, Madagascar and South America."
Working with Indian scientists, Sereno and paleontologist Jeff Wilson of the University of Michigan reconstructed the dinosaur skull in a project funded partly by the National Geographic (news - web sites) Society.
A model of the assembled skull was presented Wednesday by the American scientists to their counterparts from Punjab University in northern India and the Geological Survey of India during a Bombay news conference.
Scientists said they hope the discovery will help explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and the shifting of the continents — how India separated from Africa, Madagascar, Australia and Antarctica and collided with Asia.
The dinosaur bones were discovered during the past 18 years by Indian scientists Suresh Srivastava of the Geological Survey of India and Ashok Sahni, a paleontologist at Punjab University.
When the bones were examined, "we realized we had a partial skeleton of an undiscovered species," Sereno said.
The scientists said they believe the Rajasaurus roamed the Southern Hemisphere land masses of present-day Madagascar, Africa and South America.
"People don't realize dinosaurs are the only large-bodied animal that lived, evolved and died at a time when all continents were united," Sereno said.
The cause of the dinosaurs' extinction is still debated by scientists. The Rajasaurus discovery may provide crucial clues, Sereno said.
India has seen quite a few paleontological discoveries recently.
In 1997, villagers discovered about 300 fossilized dinosaur eggs in Pisdura, 440 miles northeast of Bombay, that Indian scientists said were laid by four-legged, long-necked vegetarian creatures.
Indian scientists said the dinosaur embryos in the eggs may have suffocated during volcanic eruptions.
< Missed it by *that* much...
"If someone asks you to stop posting to him, stop posting. This is not complicated."
"If someone asks you to stop posting to him, stop posting. This is not complicated."
1,509 posted on 08/19/2003 6:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
--------------------------------------------
For the last time? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
I think we all assumed you looked like this... :-)
It's glaring, but the atmospheric turbulence tonight is so bad you can't tell if it's spherical or ellipsiodal......
Hmmph. If FR is restricted for him as part of a blacklist of forbidden sites, all he really needs is someone to provide him with a proxy server. If he's limited to a whitelist of specifically approved sites, we might have to actually go into the telescope business to get him back during work hours ;)
You all have every right to discuss whatever you want.
One would *think* so anyway...
If you want to discuss just young earth evidences, then go for it.
I didn't suggest we discuss "just" those, I' suggested that we "focus" on those and make sure we examine them in depth.
I'm not going to agree to limit discussion to whether or not the arguments I presented from AiG are true or false though because that is off the subject of this thread.
Well first, unless we're discussing a specific dinosaur found in India, we're *all* "off the subject of this thread". :-)
But one of the recurring subjects in this thread has been disagreement over whether creationist "evidence" is scientific reliable or not. You keep showing us more and more of it in the belief that it's valid, and we keep replying that it's flawed. But before the issue can be resolved to any degree, everyone's off on another round of "well look at this", "oh yeah, look at this!".
Wouldn't it be better to spend a bit more time on *one* thing and dig into it a little deeper? Then we can get farther into it than "is so", "no it isn't".
Additionally, we can actually start to make some headway on the disputed point about whether the creation scientists actually do good work and it's just being discarded out of hand, or whether there *is* good reason to consider it substandard. There's no way we're going to convince anyone either way unless we spend more time on getting to the bottom of a few actual examples.
It's also a good way to avoid the "scattershot" problem. In too many arguments, the amount of information is too vast to allow a complete coverage in any ordinary discussion. And just trying to throw 32767 different pieces of argument or evidence into the thread is unfair to everyone involved -- not everything can be addressed by the recipient, there's just too much of it, and the presenter ends up feeling like no one has really looked at anything in depth and is just blowing it off.
Instead, I've found that a really good way to handle "big" discussions is to try to bite off just a corner of it to start with. I like to ask people, "okay, what do you think is your *one* (or 3 or 5) *best* pieces of evidence or argument -- pick your top items, and put them on the table, and we'll go over them with a fine tooth comb. If they turn out to be good, we'll have to admit that you've got a good case and the rest of your evidence is probably decent too. If not -- if your own "best" items turn out to be duds -- then you may have to admit that your whole case was far less substantive than you thought."
That's what I'm asking you to do. If you like, at the same time we can present our top 2-3 evidences for evolution, and you can see if you can knock the legs out from under them.
And none of this precludes talking about any other issues, I'm just asking that we make an effort to get to the bottom of at least *one* thing while we do it.
I started the discussion, I think in post 4, by questioning the dating of the new dinosaur find. I believe all evolutionary dating models are incorrect.
Right -- and that can be one of the items you put on the table if you wish (or at least the evidence for that belief of yours).
So, to limit me to the red hering of one particular post of mine ignores the purpose of the thread.
Not my intention -- choose something else if you wish.
Still, your own personal condescension in this post aside (I hope you may learn something), you may discuss whatever you wish.
I wasn't being condescending. I always hope to learn things from these kinds of discussions as well. I meant "you may learn something" as an additional incentive, not a putdown.
[Also, would you be willing to accept the idea that if (repeat, if) all or most of your evidences can be shown to be based on misconceptions or invalid reasoning, then perhaps creationist sources might not be as reliable or as good at science as you currently believe?]
No, I do not accept the idea. The evolutionists on this thread have outright rejected any creationist resource I have posted.
Um, I'm not sure how that connects with the question I asked.
Maybe I wasn't clear -- I was asking whether conclusively showing you that what you thought were "good" creationist arguments were actually quite flawed (if we could do such a thing) would it shake your trust in creation science in general? (I'm *not* asking if it would shake your beliefs about the Earth and God, just about the competence of creation scientists.) In short, would you say to yourself, "wow, those evo guys said these items would be duds, and they were right, maybe the other young-earth evidence isn't as hot as I thought it was either", or would you say, "okay, *those* things were duds, but it's just a wild coincidence, everything else that hasn't been challenged yet must still be perfectly solid."
The evolutionists on this thread have outright rejected any creationist resource I have posted.
I don't recall seeing that happen in quite the way you describe. I *have* seen people ask you if you can back up certain claim with items *outside* creationist sources. The reason for such questions (well, one of them) is that if your claims are beyond dispute, there should be some example of it from mainstream sources.
And frankly we're pretty used to discovering that "scientific" items from creationist sources are of poor quality. We don't presume that creationist material *must* be invalid, but if this were a horse race that'd be the way to bet. But don't just take my word for it -- that's why I wanted to spend more time on one or two creationist claims so that we could take the time to "unlayer the onion".
At least once, I was asked to post from something other than the two main creation website AiG and ICR, inferring that no good science is found at either.
See above.
To accept your proposal would be to back down to bullying.
Not at all. If those sources are as good as you believe, it would give you an opportunity to prove it to us.
Some creationists are better than others (as I have stated).
I'll agree with you there.
I do not claim equal authority for each creationist or for each creationist article or argument.
Again, that's why I suggested picking what you thought to be some of the best.
I will not succumb to the idea that creationism is just bad science, particularly from a group of people who are so attached to a theory that virtually no level of evidence would cause them to question it in the slightest.
Er, that was pretty much the point of my question to *you* above -- are you so attached to your theory that no level of demonstration of errors or bad science in your sources would cause you to question it in the slightest?
And I think you make an unfair charge -- you earlier asked what it would take to change our minds, and quite a few people indicated that they *would* change their minds if the evidence warranted it (or if creationists could come up with a comprehensive set of theory which better explained the current evidence).
But again, this is your chance to put it to the test -- try some evidence on us, let us all argue it around to see if it's solid, and *then* if we can't dispute it but refuse to accept it, you'll have proven your presumption about us. But perhaps we'll surprise you.
[In other words, may these be used as a "quality check" for creationist (or at least AiG) arguments, [snip]]
For the reasons stated above, no sir. Thanks, but no thanks.
Any chance I have changed your mind?
If not, how else would you propose resolving our disagreements? Or do you prefer to just continue to call us "BLIND" and "arrogant" and tell us we are like the three monkeys who refuse to hear and see and speak? Do you want to teach us, and learn yourself? Or just tell us what you already believe about us without giving us a chance?
That he was.
Oh, and I've been wondering.. What have you done with DittoJed1? ;-)
How about a cheap laptop using a phone modem?
1111111111111112 pieces of evidence, eh? Interesting number to pick out of your hat ;)
I guess that would work, so long as he's not on a digital PBX in the building (or is willing to get a line converter or a PBX-aware modem if he is), he can find a free phone line that nobody will care if he uses, and it's a local call...
"Why yes, I've spent a lot of time programming 16-bit computers, why do you ask?"
Do you mean this sphere?
He was my first choice for 1544, but as I said, God works in strange ways. And I went from levity, which could have been misinterpreted, to seriousness, which was misinterpreted, but causality makes things clear. I do need levity at the moment.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i10f.hm
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i9n.htm
So I took the time to read through these articles (have you taken the time to read through the links I've sent to you?). The author doesn't appear to have any sort of experience in dealing with radioactive dating, something that is readily apparent by reading his response to the person who is an expert in the field. Again, why do you think the opinion of an Ada programmer (which is what this guy is), is more knowledgeable in the field of radiometric dating than a Chemist who has spent his life learning about it? It's like going to a car mechanic to discuss matters of theology, he might have a pretty good idea of what is so and what is not so, but his level of knowledge of the depths of the subject will be lacking. Looking at this article, he's definitely out of his discipline here.
Will be chacking in periodically. Thanks :-)
Take some responsibility! You post something like 1375, watch the holes get shot in it, and basically say, "Oh yeah? Well, how about this over HERE?" (And out flies some other canned article.)
The impression is that you hardly read the stuff yourself, can't defend it, and don't much know or care how it's going to hold up under examination.
Instead, try to imagine that when you post the kinds of material you have been posting, you are offering it as correct and are putting your credibility on the line. Stay around and face the music when the critiques come in. Try to defend your post or at least explain why you posted it. This will give you some perspective of the real difficulties of the YEC position and will encourage you to start pre-screeing your material before taking it on stage.
Enough of this ruse!
You can't fool us any more! Obviously you're hiding in some super-secret government facility to protect the sanctity of your precious bodily fluids, and there's no internet access for fear that some prevert will send a virus that will compromise the purity of your life essence.
Furthermore, it has become obvious to everyone that all this chatter about your SETI project is just window dressing; you want us to THINK you're looking for ET, when in fact you're sitting out that at Area 51 WORKING WITH THEM AS WE SPEAK!
What do you take us for-- fools?
You and your ET friends and your precious bodily fluids can't fool us anymore; you're cold busted!
;-)
Just another one of those binary thinker conservatives :-)
I suppose there are places someone like you wouldn't be a minority. Conservababes.com comes to mind. Nevertheless, my impression is that literal young-Earth creationism is a small but very loud movement which must rely on a high decibel volume of activism from its participants.
A freeper named Godel once polled crevo-thread participants for their views on evolution, up or down. It was set up on a web site with a link to it from an FR thread. Evolution won far more handily than the casual impression of some of these threads would convey.
(Actually, I suspect a count of this thread would show more evo posters than creo, but with a hard core of creo posters making lots and lots and lots of posts, exactly what Godel's poll suggests. But other threads have looked like a creo high-fiving party.)
Another funny thing about that poll. Two freepers tried to jam the poll with hundreds of votes. Both were creos. That's not a shock for people familiar with these discussions. You can't whip up that sort of activism without some people going too far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
