Devil must have put transitional fossils in the ground again to confuse everyone. (Sarcasm)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Feel free to ping the Usual Suspects.
To: MeanWestTexan
Yeah. He really gets around doesn't he?
3 posted on
05/04/2005 12:37:04 PM PDT by
ZULU
(Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
To: MeanWestTexan
"Devil must have put transitional fossils in the ground again to confuse everyone. (Sarcasm)"
What was this a transition between? To posit this as a transitional animal is going way beyond the available facts.
To: MeanWestTexan
Don't these things just about always turn out to be fakes?
5 posted on
05/04/2005 12:40:55 PM PDT by
bkepley
To: MeanWestTexan
I've heard of fosilized bones (of course) but here we have fossilized events:
...moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
...was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters.
It had already lost ...
From a fossil, you know what it had had? You know what it would have? Only if you make assumptions based on what you expect to see. This is not proof or anything like it. This is people seeing what they want to see. Might be true. Might not.
6 posted on
05/04/2005 12:43:36 PM PDT by
ClearCase_guy
(The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
To: MeanWestTexan
Is this the transitional dinosaur they're talking about?
![](http://brad.touesnard.com/images/trogdor.gif)
9 posted on
05/04/2005 12:47:02 PM PDT by
mike182d
("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
To: MeanWestTexan
Sounds like a beer-belly salad-eating T-Rex with plumage. Hard to get my mind around that one.
To: MeanWestTexan
Dang, two more missing links, one on either side. Someday the evos will give up. The number of missing links is increasing exponentially.
15 posted on
05/04/2005 12:52:26 PM PDT by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: MeanWestTexan
So far every so called transitional fossil of dino to bird has been a fake or turned out not to be transitional at all but a full fledged bird. It is always wise to wait and see how things develop before crowing to loud, having to eat your words later always leaves a bad taste in a persons mouth.
Dino to bird is a pet project of the evo scientists and they have been striving for years to produce a "transitioanl" species. I doubt that this is actually a transitional species. No others have been found for any species so why would a dino to bird fossil be found? Kind of begs the question.
By the way, every other "feathered" dino didn't have feathers at all, and this is a fact but it didn't stop them from claiming they had feathers until the evidence piled up to the point they had to admit it, and before you ask "they" means evo scientists.
Also, for your info I am not a creationists or an evo but a person waiting for the truth, which I doubt we ever find because evolutionists and creationists are both like liberals and will lie to advance their agendas. Thanks for listening.
16 posted on
05/04/2005 12:52:36 PM PDT by
calex59
To: MeanWestTexan
All this information from nothing but the Bones ?
To: MeanWestTexan
Forget all the crevo argument crap, I just want to know where to buy one.
32 posted on
05/04/2005 1:08:46 PM PDT by
Skooz
(Jesus Christ Set Me Free of Drug Addiction in 1985. Thank You, Lord.)
To: MeanWestTexan
Anything that appears to be a transitional fossil is just another fossil with no transitional fossil to arrive at it.
35 posted on
05/04/2005 1:11:31 PM PDT by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: MeanWestTexan
Bones from hundreds or maybe thousands of these dinosaurs were discovered at a two-acre dig site in east-central Utah, south of the town of Green River. Nobody knows why they gathered there or what killed them... They gathered there to discuss their newfound vegetarianism and how it was going to make transcendent creatures of them all. They died of boredom.
39 posted on
05/04/2005 1:14:52 PM PDT by
Grut
To: MeanWestTexan
Devil must have put transitional fossils in the ground again to confuse everyoneDon't be silly, there is no need for one to expend effort to accomplish what others do so well.
The observations that these scientists have made of the habits of these creatures, big bellies and all, are sufficient to convince me. I just wish they hadn't left out all the info on their social interaction; I always find that enightening.
47 posted on
05/04/2005 1:22:40 PM PDT by
70times7
(An open mind is a cesspool of thought)
To: 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.
Becoming vegetarian? Isn't this called an omnivore?
54 posted on
05/04/2005 1:27:04 PM PDT by
mnehring
(http://www.mlearningworld.com)
To: MeanWestTexan
Devil must have put transitional fossils in the ground again to confuse everyone evolutionists.
To: MeanWestTexan
Devil must have put transitional fossils in the ground again to confuse everyone. (Sarcasm)
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors. Nah, the Darwinians do that.
"Bizarre" New Dinosaur Shows Evolution to Plant Eating, Study Says
The newly discovered creature was likely cloaked in hairlike feathers and walked on two legs
![](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/photogalleries/utah_dino/images/primary/Falcarius3.jpg)
OHH My aching back.
66 posted on
05/04/2005 1:35:05 PM PDT by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
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!)
To: MeanWestTexan
"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."
This was a "crossover" model, designed for running down and eating fast moving plants.
To: MeanWestTexan
Herbivores are primary consumers. No herbivores, the carnivores need a g-tube. Survival would be enhanced by having choppers and grinders. What advantage is gained by losing the choppers in favor of grinders?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson