Skip to comments.Rare fossil find on roadside (Extraordinarily preserved pterosaur)
Posted on 11/03/2006 10:10:40 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
DISCOVERING a rare, 100 million-year-old fossil is amazing enough.
But not as surprising as the way Queensland Museum palaeontologist Alex Cook found it.
Keen for a break after more than three hours of driving, Dr Cook thought he would stretch his legs at the northwest Queensland town of Hughenden - and literally stumbled over the fossil.
"I found it literally on the side of the road. It's serendipity, a happy accident," Dr Cook said today.
It is the third jaw fragment of a pterosaur - a winged, fish-eating reptile that lived in the time of the dinosaurs - found in Australia.
It also is one of the "most exquisitely preserved" pterosaur specimens found in the world.
Dr Cook said pterosaur bones were "rare worldwide".
Only 50 pterosaur bones have been found in Australia in 140 years of collecting.
No wonder Dr Cook couldn't believe his luck.
"We were getting a little tired ... so we stopped at Hughenden, had some lunch, had a bit of a look around and I literally kicked it over," he said.
"It is a little bit like finding an extraordinarily endangered species that you have been looking for - they are that rare."
Dr Cook was on a fossil-finding trip in northwest Queensland with fellow palaeontologists - Colin McHenry, from the University of Newcastle and Adam Morell of the Richmond Marine Fossil Museum, near Hughenden about 500km from Mt Isa - when he made the surprise find in 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Science is a good thing, it was created by God.
You are another voice for freedom of speech ain't ya?
Don't fear science and progress.
How can you say that? It's all quite simple. It started out when fish had some retarded babies that found other retared babies, who had butt-sex with retarded fish-frogs, ...
Don't you guys ever get tired of playing the victim...
Don't fear science and progress.
If you equate criticism with fear, then you're the one living in the dark ages. It never ceases to amaze me how some people act with the very behavior that they're trying to discourage.
Only from a deep personal sense of superiority, and the delusion that they alone are messengers of ultimate truth, can such bizarre propositions, as commonly put forward on this forum by people such as yourself, manifest.
That said, let's put this superior knowledge of yours to the test. I'll ask you the same question I've proposed here many times in the last few years, and to which, though I've received responses, have never received an answer for.
What physical event does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by drift, recombination, heredity, and mutation.
None of which, in and of themselves, infer evolution.
If natural selection can not account for any physical event, then it has no business being in a scientific theory. Period.
Baloney, you only want your views here, how free is that?
Perhaps you should destroy all the things that evil science has given you, start with your computer.
And yet I've given you the opportunity, with my query, to present the views you claim I am trying to oppress.
Why am I not surprised not only that you failed to answer my question, but that your response is in stark contrast to reality.
Dude, you pose one fundamental question that these evomoonies won't answer, engaging instead in insults.Why aren't there fossils of partially, almost evolved somethingdactyls? Oh, and how clever: some species didn't need to evolve. Adjusting reality to a dogmatic 19th century theory. And where is the competing theory like in many scientific fields?
Not very free, if your premise were true. What is deemed unwanted(it seems to me) is the patronizing attitude that comes with the discussion.
There you go again not only equating criticism of one particular theory with all of science, but of equating that criticism with fear of science. Who's' trying to shut down the conversation now.
If this is your way of avoiding a legitimate question by walking away from the ignorant Christian who fears the evil scientist and his magical knowledge then you have my sympathies...but you certainly don't have my respect.
LOL to you two FReepers with a crazy sense of humor.
Thanks. Hope you had a chuckle or two.
What are you, 10 years old? You argue like a spoiled child, all personal animus, very little substance. While the whole time, you're decrying all of the ignoramuses that you have to put up with. You are the most condescending snob I've ever encountered, outside of DU. I can't believe you've hung around FR this long, and learned nothing of how to argue a point. Oh, wait. I've just criticized you. I must be a troglodyte who fears the scary ju-ju of science.
HA HA HA. Show me a study where archeologists state that gold is millions of years old. I guess in your logic if you can see the moon and someone says it is millions of years old you would except that just like finding a chicken bone on a sidewalk and someone says it is millions of years old you buy into it. You certainly do humor me.
I read very well thank you. It's your logic that I try to comprehend but can't. Maybe it has to do with the escape clause that evos seem to always be dreaming up.
What escape clause are you referring to? I'm not sure I understand. And, as for having trouble w/ the logic of the evolutionist evangelist, it's hard to understand what is never postulated. All I seem to get from him is a long litany of personal animosity and an insulting tone.
Bet it tasted like chicken...
I noticed that, too.
That's correct as far as I know. If you google *Ussher* there's a plethora of information about what he did.
I don't speak for Darwin Central, that is your problem.Well then, I plead the same "defense" and say to you, I don't speak for Free Republic. But I note you don't speak AGAINST Darwin Central either, and for the same things that are complained about here on FR.
Creationism exists solely to fit data to the preconcieved [sic] beliefs of the bible. No actual research or scientific method is involved, its purely belief based, and completly [sic] flawed.You may want to tell that to the boys at The Creation Research Society.
As for Noah, it was a fable, its 2006, if you can't understand that by now, there is no hope for you.Then there's no hope for me. But perhaps you can answer that annoying little question that no one else has, about why there are hundreds of accounts of a worldwide flood that exist independent of each other in cultures that have had no exposure to the Bible.
As for it being a free forum, how come Patrick Henry got his homepage edited? Is science and free thought not allowed?Did I not say "It's not a completely free forum"? PH's list was chock-full of troublemakers. I didn't want to deny them the right to stay, but I'm glad that many of them were faced with the decision: make peace or make tracks.
Do you believe the earth is 5000 years old? And what proof do you have?No. About six thousand. The proof is the same as yours. Interpreted differently.
I operate on the basis of data, empirical, proof based data.Right. Interpreted according to preexisting evolutionary framework.
Not some scripture, which as important as it may be to you, is not proof, and doesn't pass objective scientific tests.Scripture is the framework which creationists enter the arena having already agreed upon. Evolution is the framework which evolutionists enter the arena having already agreed upon. And the two are left to kick it out regarding the evidence and subsequent inference.
Just don't mandate that my kids be forced to learn your religous [sic] based fables.Hey, same here. Except, evolution is taught by judicial mandate, thanks in part to left-wing groups like the ACLU.
That is not all you don't understand. You just may want to seek some "higher" level of intelligence in order to understand.
free thought is not dead here. you are posting ain't ya ? Now got take a breath mint.
In our current environment of atmospheric density and gravitational pull, how does a living thing this size fly?This is probably the biggest mystery about the large "flyers" of prehistoric times. They force evolutionists into rube goldberg "glider" explanations.
Their very existence implies we have a lot yet to learn about the environment in which thes creatures lived and reproduced.
Thanks for the spelling correction. (lost my 's' there somewhere..(8^D) )
Why wouldn't we believe it? Dave?... Dave?... : )
Seriously, though, the site I got it from seems to think that one of the pictures is real.
I feel really sorry for Kent Hovind. Say what you will about him, I think he is a very well-meaning individual.
And therein lies the rub. In order for you to prove the theory of evolution and to have it universally accepted by all people as true fact, you must first completely destroy the Holy Bible and all it teaches us.
There can be no Creator. No God. No miracles. God cannot possibly have created the Earth or the Heavens or Man and every Creature that walks swims or crawls. There was no Adam and Eve. No Garden of Eden. No original sin. There was no Noah. No Ark. No flood. No Moses. No burning bush. No Ten Commandments handed down from God. Jesus cannot possibly have been the Son of God, nor could he have died on the cross for our sins. The Resurrection could not possibly have happened. There is no Saviour and no Salvation. No life after death. No Heaven. No Hell. No God. No Satan. No good vs evil.
Therefore all of Christianity, in fact, all of all religions are simply mythical fairy tales based on lies and superstition.
The theory of evolution does not allow for the Holy Bible, or miracles including the miracle of Creation, the miracle of life, etc, or God our Creator, or Jesus Christ, or Christianity, Judaism, etc.
The Declaration of Independence is therefore also a lie. If there is no Creator, our rights cannot possibly have come from God. In other words, we have no unalienable rights. Our rights would only be what the government allows us.
The Declaration would be null and void and the founding would have been based on lies rather than "these truths we hold self-evident."
The first amendment would simply be a cruel joke. The Bill of Rights would have no foundation on truth or unalienable rights from God and that would also make the entire Constitution of the United States null and void. All laws based on the Ten Commandments would be null and void. There would be no God to guide our judges and no reason not to bear false witness.
Our entire American history, in fact all of civilization would be based on nothing but lies. Our ancestors passed down lies to our grand parents and parents and they lied to us and we have taught our children nothing but lies.
This is exactly what the Marxists (leftists) would have us believe.
If you destroy belief in the Creator, you destroy belief in God, Christianity, Judaism, etc. You destroy our entire civilized society and reason for being. We would be left with nothing but chaos and anarchy. A Marxist dream come true.
Believers in the theory of evolution may not be Marxists, but they are pushing exactly what the Marxists want pushed. And that makes it political.
And I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with science. Along with everything else, God created all knowledge and that includes the modern miracle of science.
Respectfully, based on your comments, it is evident that you do care.
Public schools should not mention God, unless they then mention any other gods that any of the other kids may worship. I don't want any religious dogma in public school. If you want your kid to learn religion, send him to a religious school. My parents did, I went K-12 to Catholic school, and I'm glad I did so.
But, honestly, calling evolution Marxist? Hyperbole!
I notice Conservative is the after-thought in your tagline. Tell me, exactly what God does "God" name?
You don't define me, I define myself. Maybe Republicans lost because so many of us act like you and demand litmus test. Being a conservative is not an afterthought, and I am going to stand up for what I believe in, believe it or not, there is room in the Republican tent for the religious right and the non religious right. You better hope so, or the tent will fold.
What God does God name? Depends on your religion I guess. Maybe we will all find out after we die.
I didn't define you. I emphasized the position of Conservative in your tagline, a tag line presented on a site which has the purpose of promoting Conservatism.
What God does God name? Depends on your religion I guess.
That seems to meet the criteria you required.
The left could care less about evolution, their sole objective is to destroy our Judeo-Christian culture and replace it with Marxism by any mean necessary.
I have to disagree. The theory of evolution does not address a deity in any way shape or form.
In fact, there is more evidence supporting evolution than there is gravitational theory.
Your logic is akin to saying since Zeus and Apollo don't exist, Euclidian geometery, Greek philosophy and all the contributions of the ancient Hellenistic world to western civilization is invalid.
We accept evolution because it is currently the best way to describe reality.
Conversely, we deny Marxism not simply from a religious perspective, but because it bears no resemblence to the real world. It has failed every reality test. It is completely untenable and is anti-reason.
The phenomenon is called "erosion".
The land around this mesa was deposited long before the land at the top of the mesa was deposited. Erosion has created the mesa by washing away or blowing away the soil around the mesa thereby exposing much older layers.
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.
"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.
"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.