Posted on 10/18/2005 7:19:16 AM PDT by Junior
Do you have an alternative explanation for this evidence?
I'm flattered.
How do you know that? It's just a theory that has to be thrown out if evidence turns up isn't it? Or is that why it can't be an ostriche... because then it hurts some other theory?
Or is that why it can't be 165 million years old... because it might be an ostriche??
See... we run into real problems if we promise to throw out theories that are overturned by evidence.... when we find evidence that may overturn the theory. So... no.. it's a bird like, ostriche size, 4 legged but walks on two dinosaur that swims out to sea to feed on carrion.
maybe it's just an ostriche. Assuming you aren't married to other theories that would be damaged if that were true.
Is there any evidence that ostriches existed 165 million years ago?
We got some tracks that indicate maybe... right? At least we think what ever made the tracks are about the size of an ostriche. Has some of the characteristics....
Or... maybe the 165 million years is a bad determination. Who knows.... but we're scientists... we're not married to any theory ... right?
As for the rest of your ravings, it's bipedal and has a three-toed foot (bird-like features); only two legs left tracks in the sand but all known dinosaurs from this period had four limbs, including the bipedal ones; from the composition of the matrix researchers can determine the type of beach sand and the depth of the footprint gives clues as to the weight of the animal (ostriches mass upwards of 155 kg -- a little on the heavy side for a two-meter long dino, but not out of the ballpark); researchers knew it was swimming (or at least be buoyed up) by the change in the foot area actually forming the track and the depth of the track.
You insist on taking this find and interpreting it alone, rather than interpreting it in the context of all the other evidence from this time period. This is a common creationist mistake, but one they feel comfortable making -- because any piece of evidence can be interpreted any old way when taken only by itself.
I'm flailing???? LOL... you're proving what I said early early in this thread. Everything you believe about this is built on pre-supposition. You are treating this just like the way our courts operate. It's all built on theory after theory... but a real scientist as your friends have so eagerly pointed out has to be ready to accept that the theory is wrong if what is observed turns out to be different than the theory. Isn't that true?
No. It's built on the totality of the evidence. That's something you cannot seem to understand.
[James Earl Jones voice]: Morton's Demon is strong in this one. [breathing sounds]
Shhh! The masters will not be pleased.
Let me see if I follow you - if it's about the same size as an ostrich, it must be an ostrich. That's your argument? You are aware, I suppose, that an ostrich only has two toes, not three, right?
Or... maybe the 165 million years is a bad determination.
Could be. Got any evidence of that, or just wishful thinking?
Does a scientist really evaluate evidence with a pre-disposed opinion? It can't be what it looks like it may be (just a big bird) ..... so it has to be a dinosaur with 4 legs that walks on the back two, with birdlike characteristics, that swims out to sea to feed on fish and carrion. How could I not think of that myself????? Why... it's as plain as the nose on one's face.
You probably think that humans at some point lost their tail.
Evidence.... well .... we've got foot prints.
I don't think we have any evidence of that yet. Now if they find skeletel remains.... then we'll talk. :)
You're growing tiresome. Repeat after me: "totality of the evidence."
Repeat after me.... Ignoring evidence because it upsets the theory.
None of this evidence has upset any theory. You may think it has, but it hasn't -- because it has been interpreted in light of all that other evidence. My God, are you this obtuse in that Baptist Church you're a deacon of?
So basically, you have no evidence that ostriches existed 165 million years ago. Nevertheless, you theorize that maybe this is some heretofore unknown prehistoric ostrich variety. One that has three toes, unlike any known ostrich. And swims, unlike any known ostrich. And you're concerned that scientists are engaging in too much speculation?
Personally, I think you should go with the Lizard Men of Zeta Reticuli theory. It has about as much evidence as your ostrich theory - i.e., none at all.
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.