Evidence of Swimming Dinosaur Found

AP - Science ^ | 2005-10-18 | BOB MOEN

[kjam22]

because it has been interpreted in light of all that other evidence

Well now that's convenient. You have to interpret evidence? You don't think that leaves a lot of room for error? Sheesh....

[Senator Bedfellow]

I don't think we have any evidence of that yet.

Hey, nobody can make you see. And you'll probably find that there aren't too many folks interested in trying either.

[kjam22]

Oh I see the light now.... how could I have been so blind. It's a 4 legged walking on the back two, dinosaur with birdlike characteristics that swims out to sea to feed on fish and poor carrion. How could I have missed that??? It probably even has feathers attached to it's reptilian skin.

If I repeat that enough... can I do the talk circuit too? I'm can be pretty good at just repeating what others have said if you want me to......

[Junior]

Methinks you're trolling. Consider yourself on Virtual Ignore.

[kjam22]

So basically, you have no evidence that ostriches existed 165 million years ago.

We've got big bird foot prints... and we've got ostriches now. Since we get to interpret evidence.... I'd say that at some point in time ostriches lost a toe.... or that at one time there were big birds like an ostriche... only with 3 toes.

[kjam22]

And swims, unlike any known ostrich.

Yet you'll believe that it swims unlike any known dinosaur.

[kjam22]

But the real sacred cow here is that just maybe the 165 million years ago isn't accurate. That would really upset a lot of theories that people have built a lot of things on.

Big birds didn't exist 165 million years ago... and we find big bird tracks... just maybe "dating rocks" isn't as easy as you tend to think it is.

But scientists will never give up that sacred cow based on observation. Not in a million years.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Why not? Kent Hovind makes a pretty good living talking about things he doesn't remotely understand - what's one more?

[kjam22]

:)

[Senator Bedfellow]

Since we get to interpret evidence.... I'd say that at some point in time ostriches lost a toe.... or that at one time there were big birds like an ostriche... only with 3 toes.

You should try your hand at Sunday-school tracts - you have a knack for just-so stories.

Yet you'll believe that it swims unlike any known dinosaur.

You're claiming that no dinosaur ever swam? What do you have to support that, I wonder...

[kjam22]

You're claiming that no dinosaur ever swam? What do you have to support that, I wonder...

Isn't that what the article says

.... "The finding would be significant because so far no one has been able to prove that aquatic dinosaurs existed, Joanna Wright, assistant professor of geology at the University of Colorado-Denver, said Monday.

[kjam22]

If you just consider logic.... which is more logical... that it's foot prints from a big bird that existed long ago... or from a dinosaur with 4 legs, that walked on two, had birdlike characteristics... and swam out to sea to feed on fish and carrion.

Seriously.... which is more likely to be true? I mean, at least we've observed big birds before.... This article reads like a story. It says they want to name this thing. Maybe they'll name it Puff the Magic Dinosaur.

[kjam22]

Puff the magic dinosaur..... lived by the sea.... and froliced in the ocean mist in a land called honoleeeeeeeeee

[Senator Bedfellow]

Isn't that what the article says

No. There are no aquatic dogs either, but you apparently think that should mean that dogs don't swim at all. Despite the fact that your own dog takes a dip every now and then.

If you just consider logic.... which is more logical... that it's foot prints from a big bird that existed long ago...

Well, since you're ignoring the fact that we know dinosaurs existed 165 million years ago, and there's absolutely no evidence of birds back then, I'd say that your claim to the "more logical" position is shaky, at best.

[kjam22]

So because puff waded out into the sea... he's an aquatic dinosaur? That's it? There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is anything special. This is about someone trying to achieve notoriety. Frankly I'm surprised that freepers would lend any credence to this at all. Anyway... day is done... you guys have been fun. I'm going home to look for my Peter Paul and Mary cd. I'll think of puff in a whole new way now... C-ya

[VadeRetro]

What's Carmen Miranda doing with the Creature From the Black Lagoon?

(The Mambo, I think!)

[VadeRetro]

Methinks you're trolling. Consider yourself on Virtual Ignore.

These are the demonstrations of the new discipline of pig-ignorantism. Be dumb, get a Nobel!

[RunningWolf]

kjam22,

You illustrate the absurdity of their thinking and logic in a humorous way.

BTW, you are not a troll (like you did not know)

Now excuse my poor use of the jargon and acronyms

I wish as they got more and more into the minutia of micro-cellular-chemical biology, DNA, fossil evidence, physics, cosmology, and all the rest.. that they might question themselves

'Ya know.. there might be something much more wonderful here than I have been told'

Wolf

[beaver fever]

No it was running from the water after land prey.

On land claw prints are an indication of a chase.

Just ask a hunter.

[Stultis]

But the real sacred cow here is that just maybe the 165 million years ago isn't accurate. That would really upset a lot of theories that people have built a lot of things on.

Yeah. Like the oil and gas company your homepage says you work for. (Strictly speaking geologists conducting exploration for oil companies don't "care" about the specific chronological ages of geologic strata. But they do regularly and extensively use theories such as biostratigraphy and lithostratigraphy which rely on distinguishing relative ages, and make no sense and wouldn't work unless there were time spans of some large magnitude involved.)