New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[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.

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.

[VadeRetro]

Then why bring it up?

If I announce I'm tallying up the responses to you, I might as well tally them up. The main problem is not that any one or two posts went unanswered. The problem is a lack of any sort of substantive stand-and-fight after your canned sources are answered.

You sprang 1375 like some sort of a "gotcha!" after I in bit on the teaser of 1355, citing in 1371 a huge existing preponderance of evidence. The list of funny anomalies that is 1375 supposedly trumps my concerns in 1355, but as I told you in the unanswered 1380,

Compared to what I mentioned, the deliberate AiG fallacies you post would not weigh an ounce even if they were legitimate arguments.

You eventually got a slew of substantive criticisms on 1375. Not attacks on AiG, not attacks on the author, attacks on the validity of drawing the outlandish conclusion drawn from the physical circumstances of how much mud, how many comets, how much helium, etc.

1608 was the first hint even that we can eventually expect substantive replies on some number of points. Again, the look is all "drive-by-shooting."

I can understand you needing time. If you were going to start answering substantive criticisms, you might even have to consider going back to 436, a reply to your 313 in which you link an AiG site on the Grand Canyon. You not only didn't reply to 436, but you re-used the AiG article later on someone else.

You're making a bigger mess than you can possibly clean up yourself. I suggest you consider Ichneumon's suggestion to narrow your focus, pick something good to defend, and see if it's defensible.

[whattajoke]

I also welcome other non-creationist theories of origins with a leg to stand on to be taught.
Careful here, DittoJed. You are assuming that "creationist theories [sic]" are solely bible based. This is certainly not the case, as each culture, each religion, each tribe, etc all have their own creation myths. I'd be happy to lay a few on you, some of which predate the Genesis account by several millennia.

more reliable of Creationist sources.
"more reliable" doesn't mean credible, however.

If there was no literal Adam with a literal fall, there is no need for a Savior and no Christianity.
So YOU say. With this one sentence I'd guess you just offended several million good Christians. This argument is not a good one to use, as I could show you a hundred examples from the first few books which if you actually took literally, you'd be in jail. And rightfully so.

That "evolutionary science" is infallible.
Hardly the case. On one hand creationists mock evolution science because it "corrects" itself, updates with the latest finds and knowledge, and is always open to change. On the other hand, creationists mock evolution for not being "open minded" to creationist thought. Can't have it both ways... and can't make this argument in the face of a belief system that is utterly unchangable (creationism) no matter what. Ever.

[ThinkPlease]

Now, in good faith I have tried to answer as many of the posts as I can.

The problem is, of course, that you are exhibiting major characteristics of classic creationists on other sites. On talk.origins, they call people who post lists of links without discussion hit-n-run posters. Ichneumon and Vade have the right idea, if you want to have an interesting discussion, lets pick something (your choice), and have a go at it. I guarantee, unlike this link posting war that we've been having, both sides will learn something about the other, provided both sides read the other sides argument. With nothing but posts with lists-o-links, we're cheating, and letting google do all of the work for us, and that's no fun. So, do you have any favorite topics?

[DittoJed2]

It makes sense if you want to be heard by "the establishment" and others won't allow you to and keep using your lack of publications in "respectable" journals against you.

Others have been fired for teaching creation, even at the University level. The field is not open for ideas.

[Right Wing Professor]

I believe both theories of origins should be taught (with both the confirming and the negating information) to schools. I also welcome other non-creationist theories of origins with a leg to stand on to be taught. I am not the one who absolutely refuses to allow any dissent. Evolutionists are.

So you are trying to tell scientists how to teach sciemce

As a rule, we don't teach 'dissenting' views in science. 2+2=3 is not treated as discussable alternative to 2+2=4. It's not a field where there are equally valid alternate views of the same thing. There is right, and there is wrong. For example, there is a fringe group of physicists who reject relativistic physics, but we don't teach 'objections' to relativity.

frequently there have been assertions made about the data I post as being "contrary to the laws of physics" or something to that affect, but without substantiation.

I agree they should say more than that, but on the other hand you go on to post ...

Genetics is one of the strongest enemies AGAINST evolution, not for it.

...which looks like the same sort of uncorroborated assertion. How much time have you spent comparing the genomes of related organisms? What in those genomes contradicts evolution?

On what basis are you Christians? If you ignore Genesis 1-11 as being "morality tales" and don't see them as literal then you destroy the foundation for the rest of Christian belief. If there was no literal Adam with a literal fall, there is no need for a Savior and no Christianity

As has been frequently noted, the largest single Christian denomination, Roman Catholicism, claims Christian theology is compatible with evolution. BTW, I said many here are Christians. I made no statement on my own behalf.

More than a few, and no, it is not overwhelming. You tested a rock and it tested to be about 4.6 billion years old. Other tests have given results of greater or lesser ages. New lava rocks have tested to be 100,000 years old or more. The science is not as solid as you think.

There are no 4.6 billion year old terrestrial rocks. The oldest, AFAIK, are 3.5 billion years. If you do a literature search from a university library, using a decent search engine, you'll find literally thousands of hits on radioactive dating. The overwhelming majority of these studies give dates compatible with geological age determined by other methods.

I know the science. I've read the science. I understand the science. I talk to people who do the science. I use some of the same techniques myself. The body of evidence on the antiquity of the earth's rocks is as solid as the rock itself.

I do not feel "steamrolled."

Yet you complained it was unfair you were having to go up against specialists in their own fields.

[DittoJed2]

I also welcome other non-creationist theories of origins with a leg to stand on to be taught.

Careful here, DittoJed. You are assuming that "creationist theories [sic]" are solely bible based. This is certainly not the case, as each culture, each religion, each tribe, etc all have their own creation myths. I'd be happy to lay a few on you, some of which predate the Genesis account by several millennia.
Where do you get that I was assuming that???????

more reliable of Creationist sources. "more reliable" doesn't mean credible, however.
And it doesn't mean not credible either.

If there was no literal Adam with a literal fall, there is no need for a Savior and no Christianity.

So YOU say. With this one sentence I'd guess you just offended several million good Christians. This argument is not a good one to use, as I could show you a hundred examples from the first few books which if you actually took literally, you'd be in jail. And rightfully so.
I don't care who I have offended. They are wrong! Rationally, if you have no basis for the fall, and you have no curse, you have no need for a Savior. Some Christians may choose to live with an irrational inconsistency in their lives that lacks both biblical support and ideological foundation. I am not one of them.

That "evolutionary science" is infallible.

Hardly the case. On one hand creationists mock evolution science because it "corrects" itself, updates with the latest finds and knowledge, and is always open to change. On the other hand, creationists mock evolution for not being "open minded" to creationist thought. Can't have it both ways... and can't make this argument in the face of a belief system that is utterly unchangable (creationism) no matter what. Ever.
I can make the case that evolution presents its claims as infallible truths. It doesn't say "scientists believe (or even some scientists believe which is more accurate)" it says "such and such millions of years ago such and such happened." Evolution also never changes towards a younger planet, but molds its data to an older planet model and explains away anything that doesn't fit that mold. It rests on assumptions which it considers to be infallible, such as the ages in geological column and won't even consider the possibility of alternate theories which do not support old ages.

Creationism, I agree, is equally inflexible. That is because of ultimate authority. I have admitted ultimately it is a faith thing, but with that thought comes the truth that one need not try to contradict what God left as the record of how he did things. The fact that there is evidence that things are exactly as He said they should be, bolsters the argument but is not necessary for the faith. In other words, Creationism never claims to be fully objective, but Evolution does claim to be so. The evidence says Evolution's claims are wrong as this thread attests.

[whattajoke]

Where do you get that I was assuming [there is only one -- the Genesis account-- non evolutionary basis for the diversity of life on earth]???????

Fair enough. So you are comfortable with children (kids with impressionalbe minds) being equally taught the Navajo creation story, the islamic creation story, the Incan creation story, the Buddhist creation story, the Hindi creation story, the ... you get the point.

[Christians who don't take the bible literally] are wrong!

Whoa. As a non-christian, I'll defer this rebuttal to one of the may christians here. But I will say that despite your reticence to accept what tens of thousands of scientists and their studies assert, you're quick to judge other adherents to your same faith, based on faith? To borrow a phrase of yours, "I'm incredulous."

The fact that there is evidence that things are exactly as He said they should be

You keep mentioning the evidence thing but have yet to show us.

The evidence says Evolution's claims are wrong as this thread attests.

See what I mean? At any rate, God did some mighty strange things if he's responsible. Light years away stars, the fossil record, Pangea, the genomic record... I wouldn't go so far as to say God lied, but he sure is a trickster. Maybe the Nords have been right all along with that Loki character.

[DittoJed2]

I believe both theories of origins should be taught (with both the confirming and the negating information) to schools. I also welcome other non-creationist theories of origins with a leg to stand on to be taught. I am not the one who absolutely refuses to allow any dissent. Evolutionists are.

So you are trying to tell scientists how to teach sciemce
I'm sorry, but I don't recall telling ANY scientist what they do. I expressed my BELIEF of how I think it should be taught. I did not mandate anyone do anything. Again, Evolutionists are the ones mandating what be taught and, as a whole, ANY theory that contradicts them (creationist or not) is frowned upon and not taught.

As a rule, we don't teach 'dissenting' views in science. 2+2=3 is not treated as discussable alternative to 2+2=4. It's not a field where there are equally valid alternate views of the same thing. There is right, and there is wrong. For example, there is a fringe group of physicists who reject relativistic physics, but we don't teach 'objections' to relativity.
Look at my list of scientists who have expressed doubt regarding Darwinism. They aren't all creationists by any means. They are highly qualified folks who have published their observations. Their observations, be they creation or non-creation are hardly the equivalent of 2+2=3, and the fact that you would draw such an analogy is further evidence of the bad faith which you operate under. To you, the theory is undeniable truth and anything or anyone who dares to question it will be dismissed, denied, or ignorred.

frequently there have been assertions made about the data I post as being "contrary to the laws of physics" or something to that affect, but without substantiation.

I agree they should say more than that, but on the other hand you go on to post ...

Genetics is one of the strongest enemies AGAINST evolution, not for it.

...which looks like the same sort of uncorroborated assertion. How much time have you spent comparing the genomes of related organisms? What in those genomes contradicts evolution?

I will gladly provide you with genetic information which does not support evolution in another post. I'm addressing this one at this point.

On what basis are you Christians? If you ignore Genesis 1-11 as being "morality tales" and don't see them as literal then you destroy the foundation for the rest of Christian belief. If there was no literal Adam with a literal fall, there is no need for a Savior and no Christianity

As has been frequently noted, the largest single Christian denomination, Roman Catholicism, claims Christian theology is compatible with evolution. BTW, I said many here are Christians. I made no statement on my own behalf.


And you have to look at what authority they base that upon. They base that upon the Pope's say-so, which is fine if they want to do that, but they do not base it upon a plain reading of Scripture. I stand by my statement of the biblical record AND the implications of allegorizing Genesis 1-11.

More than a few, and no, it is not overwhelming. You tested a rock and it tested to be about 4.6 billion years old. Other tests have given results of greater or lesser ages. New lava rocks have tested to be 100,000 years old or more. The science is not as solid as you think.

There are no 4.6 billion year old terrestrial rocks. The oldest, AFAIK, are 3.5 billion years. If you do a literature search from a university library, using a decent search engine, you'll find literally thousands of hits on radioactive dating. The overwhelming majority of these studies give dates compatible with geological age determined by other methods.
Meteorites which have hit the earth have been tested in the range I stated.

I know the science. I've read the science. I understand the science. I talk to people who do the science. I use some of the same techniques myself. The body of evidence on the antiquity of the earth's rocks is as solid as the rock itself.
Or as solid as evolutionist presuppositions. Some rocks, same rock mind you, have been tested by a variety of methods and have tested to be different ages. All of this assumes uniformity as well, which is not a given but is demanded by evolutionary theory.

I do not feel "steamrolled."

Yet you complained it was unfair you were having to go up against specialists in their own fields.
I complain that it is unfair to have my sources completely discounted at every turn because of their creationist leanings. I admit I do not have the formal training to counter these "specialists" however, I do have a brain in my head that tells me Darwinian evolution is not universally accepted even by non-creationists, as evidenced by my earlier post on those who question Darwinism.

[RadioAstronomer]

I do have a brain in my head that tells me Darwinian evolution is not universally accepted even by non-creationists, as evidenced by my earlier post on those who question Darwinism.

I have not had the time to follow all the arguments here, however, not universally accepted is a strong statement. Not unversally accepted by who? Born again Christians, scientists, the lay public? What percent of each does not accept? I would love to see the sources for this statement.

[RadioAstronomer]

it has become obvious to everyone that all this chatter about your SETI project is just window dressing; you want us to THINK you're looking for ET, when in fact you're sitting out that at Area 51 WORKING WITH THEM AS WE SPEAK!

I have land for sale about 40 miles west of the Golden Gate bridge too! hehehehe

[DittoJed2]

Where do you get that I was assuming [there is only one -- the Genesis account-- non evolutionary basis for the diversity of life on earth]???????

Fair enough. So you are comfortable with children (kids with impressionalbe minds) being equally taught the Navajo creation story, the islamic creation story, the Incan creation story, the Buddhist creation story, the Hindi creation story, the ... you get the point.
I'm not saying that the Bible creation story should be taught in its entirety. A theory that includes intelligent design by a higher authority (with its accompanying evidece) would suffice.

[Christians who don't take the bible literally] are wrong!

Whoa. As a non-christian, I'll defer this rebuttal to one of the may christians here. But I will say that despite your reticence to accept what tens of thousands of scientists and their studies assert, you're quick to judge other adherents to your same faith, based on faith? To borrow a phrase of yours, "I'm incredulous."
No, based on reason. If you destroy the foundation, you destroy the reasons for the faith.

The fact that there is evidence that things are exactly as He said they should be

You keep mentioning the evidence thing but have yet to show us.
I can't show those who are blind and deaf to the evidence a thing. I have presented many reasons for my arguments. You all choose to say that I have produced no evidence.

The evidence says Evolution's claims are wrong as this thread attests.

See what I mean? At any rate, God did some mighty strange things if he's responsible. Light years away stars, the fossil record, Pangea, the genomic record... I wouldn't go so far as to say God lied, but he sure is a trickster. Maybe the Nords have been right all along with that Loki character.
Light years has been explained. The fossil record does NOT support evolution. Pangea is a fairy tail (why shrink Africa 40% and get rid of a lot of countries in between North and South America if Pangea were true. It is a theory of what may have occurred and has been discredited). The continents are not sitting on lily pads. There is actual dirt underneath.

Genetics does not support the jumps which evolution requires. When mutation occurs, it is usually detrimental to the creature and it certainly doesn't cause it to jump into an entirely different type of animal (reptile to bird, etc).

[DittoJed2]

As evidence for my Pangea comments, please look at the size of Africa in this depiction http://www.exploratorium.edu/faultline/earthquakescience/pangea.html
Compared with the size of Africa http://www.intellnet.org/resources/cia_worldfactbook_99/802657.jpg
They aren't the same size. Nor, do they fit together like a tight little puzzle.

[DittoJed2]

Here is a good link of creationists and non-creationists who question Darwinism

[whattajoke]

Wow. First off, I must give you credit for responding to so many of us. I will do my part and ignore the religion stuff for now, and focus on one thing. A rather big thing, though, I'm afraid.

Pangea is a fairy tail... It is a theory of what may have occurred and has been discredited. The continents are not sitting on lily pads. There is actual dirt underneath.

Well, you are consistent if anything. Is thunder just God bowling too? What are earthquakes? Volcanism? Fault lines? Continental drift? Your claim that Pangea is a "discredited fairy tail (sic)" is astonishing. Surely you have submitted this to a publisher? Any publisher? At least you do recognize that any continental shifting points to an old earth and lends credence to evolution, which is why you must deny it. And since you can't actually "see" the continents moving (because there's "actual dirt beneath") it follows suit that (much like the long, slow evolutionary process) you refuse to accept it.

By the way, have you ever wondered what's below all that "dirt?" Curious as to what the word "molten" in "molten lava" means? Ever been interested in the near jigsaw puzzle shape of E. Brazil and W. Africa? Did it ever cross your mind as to how certain species (humans included) got from one "island" land mass to another?

Apparently not.

[whattajoke]

As evidence for my Pangea comments...

Again I give you credit for recognizing your Pangea comments were about to be disputed. But you posted a link showing how/what Pangea and plate tectonics is and are. ??? I'm not quite sure how this bolsters your contention one iota.

Get up and go into your backyard. Find a piece of shale or sandstone or something equally fragile. drop it from your roof. leave the resulting pieces there for a couple years. Be amazed how they "don't fit together like a tight puzzle" anymore. Call one Africa and the other South America and recognize each year you waited represents 100 million years.

Scratch head and dutifully forget what you have just seen.

[general_re]

I see that it's time to repost my "intelligent drift" theory of continental placement. ;)

[Right Wing Professor]

No sourcing of information for most of them, plus a statement to the efffect that "1/18/02: Please note, though much time and research has gone into this page, it is always possible that there are some inconsistencies and false information on it.". In other words, they lumped together anyone who'd expressed the slightest doubts about evolution in with fanatic creationists, and figured the chances of getting called on it were slim.

[DittoJed2]

And your point????? There is sourcing. Their own books. Many of these scientist, such as Crick, offer non-Darwinian theories of evolution. I have not represented it to be other than what it claims to be

[whattajoke]

I see that it's time to repost my "intelligent drift" theory of continental placement.

Ah, yes. That was a great one! Is DittoJed the first person to discredit plate tectonics here? I believe AndrewC, Gore3K, and perhaps even our dearly departed friend accepted p tec's.

[DittoJed2]

You make oodles of assumptions based upon what I said about Pangea. Assumptions about what I believe or don't believe regarding plate tectonics. I said that they shrank Africa to make it fit. That does not help Pangea. And, fair enough, erosion could account for part of it not being a perfect fit today, but good grief, get ahold of yourself. To say that I don't believe in volcanic action, fault lines, earthquakes based upon my rejection of the hypotheses surrounding Pangea is almost hysterics.

By the way, there are continental shelves surrounding the continents and land bridges that could explain how people got from point A to point B.