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

Skip to comments.

Fossil shows baby dinosaur in mammal's belly
CNN.com Space & Science ^ | 1/13/05 | AP

Posted on 01/16/2005 7:22:34 PM PST by IllumiNaughtyByNature

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: taxesareforever
The article says the mammal was the size of a large dog, I don't know what kind of cats are found in your neighborhood but the ones around here are the size of a small dog. This fact alone punches a hole in the evolutionary premise that mammals were the size of chipmunks during the 'reign' of dinosaurs. This evolution/creation debate will go on forever because of the nature of the subject, there is simply no way to conclusively prove a process that has happened in the past. And while evolution, or more correctly natural selection, is effective at explaining how a species can adapt to its environment with genes that already exist in the DNA it utterly fails to show new species, or new genetic traits being created.
41 posted on 01/16/2005 10:08:06 PM PST by sketchboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sketchboy

Hey, I'm on your side.


42 posted on 01/16/2005 10:15:30 PM PST by taxesareforever (Just can't seem to get enough protection for criminals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sketchboy

Large cat doesn't mean house cat, it means mountain lion-size cat. It's also false to say that it is part of evolutinary premise that mammals were the size of chipmunks back then. They state in the article that mammals 2/3 the size were already known about, so, while significant, it doesn't really go against anything already know. Besides, evolutionary theory does not require a species to grow in size over time. In the end, all this means is that we've found another hole in our fossile record, which nobody every claimed was complete.


43 posted on 01/16/2005 11:19:15 PM PST by Sofa King (MY rights are not subject to YOUR approval.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sketchboy
The article says the mammal was the size of a large dog, I don't know what kind of cats are found in your neighborhood but the ones around here are the size of a small dog. This fact alone punches a hole in the evolutionary premise that mammals were the size of chipmunks during the 'reign' of dinosaurs.

The theory of evolution says nothing of the kind. The fossil record says it. And now they found one (out of thousands) exception to the rule: A slightly larger mammal having eaten a smaller (probably hatchling) dinosaur.

Oh, how will the theory ever hold up now??? =:-O

44 posted on 01/16/2005 11:20:20 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: The Innovator's Solution by Christensen & Raynor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Step_Into_the_Void
You are a Very precocious 12 year old.
45 posted on 01/16/2005 11:40:14 PM PST by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JFK_Lib
Void, you are the lamest troll I have met on any boards.

What a laugh. Did I hurt your feeings so you called me a troll? (your predicted answer, no I called you a troll because you are stupid, arrogant, mean, etc).

Evolution is a fact. The theory part is the how.

Just like Darrow and the ACLU took it to Bryan and the fundies in the 20s, logic should and will ridicule fundies now for taking such an extremist stand. I agree with conservatives on many things, but this is the 21st century and science is what keeps us ahead of the pack.

46 posted on 01/17/2005 3:20:44 AM PST by Step_Into_the_Void (Got separation of church and state?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stratocaster

"Your post borders on bigotry."

Your post borders on irresponsibility.

It was Lost_in_the_void that you apparently meant to respond to, not me.

That cretin, whom I now shall ignore as a lowlife-scum-sucking, invertebrate was the one trolling for anger, not me.

I am a Creationist in that I believe that God created the Universe, life and humanity. I also believe that he did it by way of a gradual process that many today call evolution.

I am not bigoted toward Creationists, though many of them are abit trigger happy, it would seem.


47 posted on 01/17/2005 5:56:10 AM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
Step_Into_the_Void, I think #36 was intended for you rather than JFK_Lib.

Yes, apparently it was.

It is a comment on that cretins inflamatory rhetoric that he provokes peopleinto such angry responses that they dont get the attributions right.

Folks, I am going to ignore Lost_in_the_Void as he is not trying to generate any form of rational discussion, but is merely provoking people with his insults and broad-sweeping statements that are simply stupid.

After all the threads I have posted in regarding evolution, he still thinks I disagree with the scientific theory of evolution, for example. How do you carry on a discussion with an ignoramus like that? You dont, you ignore him and save your energy for productive thought, which is what I am going to do. Just say no to Lost_in_the_Void.

48 posted on 01/17/2005 6:05:15 AM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: K4Harty

That's right, right here in my belly!

49 posted on 01/17/2005 6:08:39 AM PST by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Step_Into_the_Void

"Evolution is a fact. The theory part is the how."

Ok smartguy. Where did the first cell(s) come from? It's such a fact, how come we can't make life out of non-life? How does something "evolve" from nothing? Why do things become less efficient with evolutionary stages? A single cell can live alot easier than a multicelled organism. They (single celled organisms) can also do it more efficiently too. Why would something that requires more effort be able to live so well?


50 posted on 01/17/2005 8:02:27 AM PST by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Fossil Is Proof of Mammal Eating Dinosaur
AP | 1-12-05 | JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA
Posted on 01/12/2005 1:57:57 PM EST by Pharmboy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319341/posts


51 posted on 09/20/2006 10:54:10 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Saturday, September 16, 2006. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 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