Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newfound Dinosaur a Transitional Creature
Las Vegas Sun (AP) ^ | May 04, 2005 | Malcolm Ritter

Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan

Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.

It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.

(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dinosaurs; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; paleontology; transitionalfossil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 741-755 next last
To: mlc9852
Rude?

I just asked if you read the link?

I really did take the effort to figure out how to post a link for you because it's that good.

And I'm quite serious, only the OJ Jury could doubt evolution if they read and understood that link.

Let me reiterate that. Only the OJ Jury could doubt evolution if they read and understood that link.

It's just as simple as that. Evolution is cold, hard, fact, and the link demonstrates it.

101 posted on 05/04/2005 2:02:57 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Someone must've dropped a joint in the sandwich I was eating while on this thread. My IQ has dropped to room temperature and I can't focus my eyes.


102 posted on 05/04/2005 2:03:34 PM PDT by Nataku X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Some of those have, indeed, made their way up the chain and tricked the professionals.

Then the question becomes how many of them actually become accepted after the peer review process.

The most recent "fake fossil" that a number of creationists tout as "proof" that all of evolution is a fraud didn't even make it past peer review. Some layman "science" magazine did a big story on it before it was actually analyzed critically, and creationists considered that some kind of enshrining it into the holy Church of Darwin.
103 posted on 05/04/2005 2:04:31 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: narby

took me two readings of your post to catch the sarcasm, so I'll make you the same offer I made dimensio. I'll go get the book and get the exact quote, and the page number to boot.


104 posted on 05/04/2005 2:04:45 PM PDT by timtoews5292004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Fiddlstix; mikeus_maximus; johnnyb_61820; Aquinasfan; ...

ID ping list! (Cause I'm always up for new info and discussions)


105 posted on 05/04/2005 2:09:36 PM PDT by MacDorcha (Where Rush dares not tread, there are the Freepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
And why wouldn't other scientists take them seriously?

Lack of peer review. You want something taken seriously, submit it to peer review.

Creationists aren't terribly familiar with that concept.

How many scientists have actually examined these new-found fossils?

Not many if they've not been subjected to peer review. Are you paying attention, or are you just trying to argue for lack of anything intelligent to say?
106 posted on 05/04/2005 2:09:58 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

"Here's something else that bothers me, dinosaurs as birds rather than reptiles becomes fashionable and suddenly we're up to our necks in feathered dinosaurs. How did we miss the feathers before?"

Yes that bothers me too. Anyone know the answer to this?


107 posted on 05/04/2005 2:10:15 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Nataku X
Someone can drop this joint in my sandwich anytime.


108 posted on 05/04/2005 2:10:39 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I refer to it as "scientific religious mythology" and the stories keep being passed down and never end.


109 posted on 05/04/2005 2:10:40 PM PDT by clearsight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

What a lovely, lovely, lovely picture... :-)


110 posted on 05/04/2005 2:12:39 PM PDT by Nataku X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Of course, I can't help but notice how folks who hate religion find a home in their theory of evolution.

Oh, you mean men like Stalin, who outlawed the teaching of Darwinian evolution?
111 posted on 05/04/2005 2:12:53 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

How many scientists are normally involved in peer review? How diversified are they or all they are employed by the same sponsors? Who has the final say?


112 posted on 05/04/2005 2:12:56 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I suppose the same question could be asked: how many fake scriptures made past the peer review process? There is certainly the Apocrypha to worry about. Pretty good idea that it's not real. But the Roman Church accepts it. Does that make the Gospel of John worthless?

And does the fact that the Shroud of Turan is probably a fake disprove the existence of Jesus?

The answer to both, is, OF COURSE NOT.

There are frauds and fakes in everything.


113 posted on 05/04/2005 2:14:18 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

"Who has the final say?"

No one.

That is, in part, the beauty of science --- the ability to go back and test the accepted with new methods, information, and ideas.


114 posted on 05/04/2005 2:16:44 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
How many scientists are normally involved in peer review?

Lots. I don't have an exact number.

How diversified are they or all they are employed by the same sponsors?

They would all need training in the same field, but that's the extent of it. It's better if they have different sponsors, but they need to have the same field of expertise; you wouldn't have a physicist trying to peer review a paper on molecular biology.

Who has the final say?

Are you just too lazy to look up how the peer review process works?
115 posted on 05/04/2005 2:17:47 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
How many scientists are normally involved in peer review? How diversified are they or all they are employed by the same sponsors? Who has the final say?

Peer review.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

116 posted on 05/04/2005 2:18:12 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Nataku X
Thanks. I like it, too.

Especially after some grilling over hickory.

117 posted on 05/04/2005 2:19:39 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thank you. I guess Dimensio wasn't sure about this.


118 posted on 05/04/2005 2:20:13 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852; Dimensio
I guess Dimensio wasn't sure about this.

No, he's very knowledgeable. It's just that not everyone has the time or inclination to respond to very basic questions that you could look up yourself. I suggest you bookmark that Wikipedia website.

119 posted on 05/04/2005 2:23:40 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

"Of course, I can't help but notice how folks who hate religion find a home in their theory of evolution. Coincidence?"

Huh. That's a pretty broad brush.

I am a firmly Bible-believing Christian. Coverted from Judaism, in fact. I know my Bible well and believe it.

I also happen to believe that evolution and Genesis will square just fine, once all the details are worked out.

The problem, IMHO, are two: (1) close-minded people who are "too smart" for the Bible and (2) close-minded people who are so pharsitical in the manner they interpret very vague and confusing scriptures that they cannot bear to part with pre-conceived notions.

For the first group, I pray.

For the second group, I remind them of the Jews who were looking for a military conquering messiah 2,000 years ago. They had pretty good scriptural arguments for that concept. They also had collective agreement.

And they were collectively damn wrong.


120 posted on 05/04/2005 2:25:41 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 741-755 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson