Posted on 10/18/2005 7:19:16 AM PDT by Junior
Ah, geeze. You call yourself a freeper and you actually own fake-folk, commie-pop crap like PP&M? (Okay, I admit I didn't burn my Dixie Chicks CDs either. But they're actually good if you ignore the yammerings of the short, fat one.)
So, how does a carnivore get around when he's not chasing something? Hint: reptile and bird claws do not retract.
" So, how does a carnivore get around when he's not chasing something? Hint: reptile and bird claws do not retract."
What I meant was if you were following animal tracks that showed pad and claw prints and then suddenly the claw impressions became deeper and the pad impressions were shallow or disappeared it would indicate that the animal was running.
Ahhh... I think the paleontologists probably took that into account, too.
Theories are explainations for things. "A spaceship can orbit the earth" is a prediction, not an explaination.
Lol.....when did that liberal "modernman" get the boot?
Modernman was as conservative as anyone else on this forum. Simply because you and he may have differed in opinions on certain subjects does not mean he was liberal.
hmmm. drugs, anti-war, liberal democrats ..
That's not what the article said ...
"The swimming dinosaur had four limbs and it walked on its hind legs, which each had three toes," she said. "The tracks show how it became more buoyant as it waded into deeper water — the full footprints gradually become half-footprints and then only claw marks."
" then suddenly the claw impressions became deeper"
The running analogy and the wading analogy would have produced similar prints.
My point is that a two legged marine dinosaur would possible be feeding on land and in the water. Bipedal dinosaurs were after all the most efficient predators.
Think Godzilla.
No. As the article was trying to point out, the prints showed increasing lift from the water. Exactly opposite from the digger prints from running. Have you ever gone into the water? As you wade out, you gradually put less pressure on your feet, then you are just using your toes to move you along till finally you can't touch at all and you are swimming.
Alright already!
So it's a wading dinosour but it's bipedal, so a reasonable hypothosis is that it was able to move into shallow water for the occasional snack.
It's just an idea!
I wouldn't defend it in front of a firing squad!
No, the footprints are real. She was presenting that finding at the conference along with her interpretation. That's how the scientific community works. The information is put out to the peers and they can ignore it, support it with more research or refute it as they feel appropriate.
I'm on your side.
If there are fossil footprints then they are real since faking fossil footprints (done primarily from the young earth crowd) are crude to the point of absurdity.
Frankly I find the notion of a water dwelling bipedal dinosaur to be facinating.
BTW I am fully aware of how scientific theories are formulated and verified by evidence.
You have to be either extreme right....or a moonbat leftist to get booted off this forum. I doubt you'll find anyone that will say he was far right.
Not necessarily You simply have to piss off someone the a Mod likes.
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.