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

Skip to comments.

New Dinosaur Species Found in India
AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep

New Dinosaur Species Found in India
2 hours, 55 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM, Associated Press Writer

BOMBAY, India - U.S. and Indian scientists said Wednesday they have discovered a new carnivorous dinosaur species in India after finding bones in the western part of the country.

Photo
AP Photo


Missed Tech Tuesday?
Check out the powerful new PDA crop, plus the best buys for any budget


The new dinosaur species was named Rajasaurus narmadensis, or "Regal reptile from the Narmada," after the Narmada River region where the bones were found.

The dinosaurs were between 25-30 feet long, had a horn above their skulls, were relatively heavy and walked on two legs, scientists said. They preyed on long-necked herbivorous dinosaurs on the Indian subcontinent during the Cretaceous Period at the end of the dinosaur age, 65 million years ago.

"It's fabulous to be able to see this dinosaur which lived as the age of dinosaurs came to a close," said Paul Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. "It was a significant predator that was related to species on continental Africa, Madagascar and South America."

Working with Indian scientists, Sereno and paleontologist Jeff Wilson of the University of Michigan reconstructed the dinosaur skull in a project funded partly by the National Geographic (news - web sites) Society.

A model of the assembled skull was presented Wednesday by the American scientists to their counterparts from Punjab University in northern India and the Geological Survey of India during a Bombay news conference.

Scientists said they hope the discovery will help explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and the shifting of the continents — how India separated from Africa, Madagascar, Australia and Antarctica and collided with Asia.

The dinosaur bones were discovered during the past 18 years by Indian scientists Suresh Srivastava of the Geological Survey of India and Ashok Sahni, a paleontologist at Punjab University.

When the bones were examined, "we realized we had a partial skeleton of an undiscovered species," Sereno said.

The scientists said they believe the Rajasaurus roamed the Southern Hemisphere land masses of present-day Madagascar, Africa and South America.

"People don't realize dinosaurs are the only large-bodied animal that lived, evolved and died at a time when all continents were united," Sereno said.

The cause of the dinosaurs' extinction is still debated by scientists. The Rajasaurus discovery may provide crucial clues, Sereno said.

India has seen quite a few paleontological discoveries recently.

In 1997, villagers discovered about 300 fossilized dinosaur eggs in Pisdura, 440 miles northeast of Bombay, that Indian scientists said were laid by four-legged, long-necked vegetarian creatures.

Indian scientists said the dinosaur embryos in the eggs may have suffocated during volcanic eruptions.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: acanthostega; antarctica; australia; catastrophism; crevolist; dino; dinosaurs; godsgravesglyphs; ichthyostega; india; madagascar; narmadabasin; narmadensis; paleontology; rajasaurus; rino
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,421-1,4401,441-1,4601,461-1,480 ... 3,121-3,129 next last
To: PatrickHenry
tee-totalling placemarker
1,441 posted on 08/19/2003 2:30:48 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Mea culpa.  I did find one non-creationist article on-line dealing with the dino blood.  The actual University wherein the research took place (the University of Montana) has no information on-line about the research.
1,442 posted on 08/19/2003 2:31:35 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1433 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
There are no "un-fossilized dinosaur bones." There are, however, evidently "not-fully fossilized dinosaur bones." The difference is small but signficant.
1,443 posted on 08/19/2003 2:33:35 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1434 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Interesting website. The article on the next page though kinda refutes Jenny's contention that living dinosaurs wouldn't necessarily hurt the theory. http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i12f.htm
1,444 posted on 08/19/2003 2:37:58 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1442 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Junior, one other thing too. Just consider, not asking you to accept, but just consider the possibility that their millions and billions of years assumptions are not correct. What would the implications be?
1,445 posted on 08/19/2003 2:39:04 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1442 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
As I suspected, some of the plumper targets have been sniped at, so I'll pick some remainders. Give AiG credit, they seem to have been trying to find some new stump-the-dummies material.

Before I start in, here's a good by-the-numbers treatment of the standard stuff. Comets are number 3. The magnetic field is number 11. Helium is 14. Mud is 21. Salt is 24. History is number 28. I recommend a thorough read of the whole thing, however.

To business (what is left of it), then!

2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

I know, I already said "Mud is 21." But I want to add something.

Like the salt and helium arguments, the mud arguments ignores that the substance being surveyed does not stay around. At least, mud does not stay mud forever. Under pressure, muds of different sorts turn into sedimentary rocks of different sorts, mostly shales.

5. Many strata are too tightly bent. I don't remember seeing this one before, so I'll amuse myself by guessing the gimmick rather than looking for a refutation researched by a real scientist. You see, it's always a Stump-the-Dummies gimmick with these things.

I think the gimmick is that the speed of bending probably influences whether or not a seemingly brittle object cracks under bending forces. Let's get the whole text of that one.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.
It isn't just the degree of bending being cited as the problem, it's the lack of cracks. But I assume the AiG-ers are modeling the crack/non-crack behavior of the strata based upon the bending occurring over some very short interval.

Why does your camera's shutter spring get "tired" if you put it away in the cocked position for two years? (That is, when you take it out and try to take pictures, the spring doesn't move the shutter fast enough for the marked exposure times anymore.)

The molecules adjust themselves slowly, under pressure. You can almost think of the spring re-hardening into a new position. Many substances exhibit a slow but observable molecular memory as they "adjust" to a certain physical relationship. By doing this, they slowly bleed and dissipate physical pressures on them.

That's without wondering about at what temperature the particular strata were metamorphosed. I suspect AiG assumes a cold process, but most metamorphosing is done under pressure and heat with a lot of time involved.

6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.

A big deal is made over the ability of a sandstone layer to intrude into another layer. Here's another creation-oriented site that treats the alleged problem in more detail: Clastic Dykes.

From that site:

One series of dikes of special interest to one seeking to determine the age of sediments in the earth is found in the Front Range of Colorado north of Pikes Peak (Gross 1894, Roy 1946, Vitanage 1954, Harms 1965). In this case, sand from the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone has intruded into the Precambrian Pikes Peak granite during the Laramide Orogeny. This orogeny is the main uplift forming the Rocky Mountains which occurred relatively late in geologic time. There is disagreement as to whether the intrusions forming these dikes are from below or from above; in this case the time discrepancy is so great that this point makes little difference. The sandstone dikes contain fragments from the Permian-Pennsylvanian Fountain Formation, indicating that at least this formation was present at the time of intrusion. On a geologic time scale this represents a period of at least 250 million years during which the Sawatch sandstone remained uncemented. This seems especially unusual since just above the Sawatch are several carbonate layers that could provide an abundant source of cement for the Sawatch. If, as field evidence indicates, intrusion took place during the Laramide Orogeny, the Sawatch sandstone would have had to remain uncemented for more than 400 million years. On the other hand, if, as expected, dikes are formed at approximately the same time as their host rock, or at least the cracking of the host rock during the Laramide Orogeny in the Pikes Peak granite case, then there must not be much time difference between the Cambrian and the Laramide Orogeny which supposedly occurred more than 400 million years later!
I have highlighted the section which says that there is uncertainty whether the Cambrian sandstone intruded into the Precambrian granite from below or above. It's supposedly unimportant, but since it's almost like asking whether or not the Precambrian was before or after the Cambrian, let's clear it up.

This photo shows the Cambrian Sawatch Sandstone overlying the Precambrian Pikes Peak Granite. Like the unconformity near the bottom of the Grand Canyon or in the Tetons or near Ogden, Utah, this one consists of Cambrian sandstone overlying Precambrian igneous or metamorphic rock. Its difference is that here, the sandstone was deposited slightly later in the Cambrian than in the other places mentioned. It is younger because the shoreline was moving eastward as the ocean transgressed. By the same reasoning, we can guess that the Cambrian sandstone above the unconformity in Wisconsin is even younger. It is.

A Website on the Unconformity.

So we see that the sandstone lies over the granite whose cracks it intrudes, which makes sense since a quick check confirms that the Cambrian is still considered later than the Precambrian.

Now, let's go back to the issue of bending and cracking. We have a granite layer that was brittle enough to develop cracks during mountain-building. We have a sandstone layer which was "somehow" viscous enough to flow in to fill the cracks.

I don't know about you, but I can see why real geology is not agonizing over this one. Either the sandstone is "hardened" or it isn't. But even a "cemented" sandstone will seem viscous compared to the highly crystalline and rather solid granite. At any event, the sandstone overlies the granite and is much younger. If the underlying granite cracks, the sandstone isn't going to float on nothing, especially under the kind of pressures involved.

1,446 posted on 08/19/2003 2:46:02 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1375 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Junior, one other thing too. Just consider, not asking you to accept, but just consider the possibility that their millions and billions of years assumptions are not correct.

Those are not assumptions. They are the conclusions of the analysis of a large body of radioactive decay evidence.

1,447 posted on 08/19/2003 2:47:46 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1445 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I also found that website some time ago. I was pretty surprised to find out that Do-While Jones was a die-hard creationist :(
1,448 posted on 08/19/2003 2:49:23 PM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1442 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
[The phlogiston theory of fire has been shown wrong.]

It has? Source please!

Google on "Lavwahseeyay!" (Sp?) I don't have time to force feed you Luddites!

1,449 posted on 08/19/2003 2:53:38 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1405 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; RightWingNilla
At least the luminiferous aether is still not dead.

I suppose you have a few beakers laying around in your laBORatory.

1,450 posted on 08/19/2003 2:55:04 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1406 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Nothing. If, however you found a T-Rex skeleton over 200 million years old, you'd definitely stir up some news.
1,451 posted on 08/19/2003 2:57:31 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1445 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Vade must have awoken with too much of the black bile this morning.

My bile storage receptacle was surgically removed two years ago this month. Thus, I am incapable of harboring large amounts of bile, despite the sniping and caviling of small-minded critics which would drive a normal mortal to homicide!

1,452 posted on 08/19/2003 2:57:36 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1413 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Interesting website. The article on the next page though kinda refutes Jenny's contention that living dinosaurs wouldn't necessarily hurt the theory. http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i12f.htm

I read the article. How does it refute my contention that finding a living dinosaur somewhere on Earth shouldn't be possible?

1,453 posted on 08/19/2003 3:02:02 PM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1444 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I didn't say it refuted that it shouldn't be possible. I said that it refuted that is shouldn't be significant. It would be significant because it would at least add the possibility that dinosaurs are younger than suspected and the entire column is misdated. Wouldn't prove that it is, but would add that possibility.
1,454 posted on 08/19/2003 3:12:27 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1453 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I believe that it would be significant to discover a younger earth because it wouldn't give evolutionists the time they postulate is needed for evolution to occur.
1,455 posted on 08/19/2003 3:13:48 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1451 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
In what way? The demise of the dinosaurs has nothing to do with evolution; the latter would have occured if dinosaurs were still around. The rocks containing the youngest dinosaur fossils have been consistently dated by several means at about 65 million years old. You have to throw out physics to get the result you want.
1,456 posted on 08/19/2003 3:20:22 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1455 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Radioactive dating methods are flawed.
1,457 posted on 08/19/2003 3:21:24 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1447 | View Replies]

To: Junior
How do you know that the dinosaurs are 65 million years (or 200 million years or whatever) old?
1,458 posted on 08/19/2003 3:22:33 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1456 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Radioactive dating methods are flawed.

Would you care to show any non-ICR/AiG references for this?

1,459 posted on 08/19/2003 3:29:38 PM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1457 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
You might try Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective before you start disparaging radiometric dating methods.
1,460 posted on 08/19/2003 3:29:56 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1458 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,421-1,4401,441-1,4601,461-1,480 ... 3,121-3,129 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