[kjam22]

The article specifically says....

The finding would be significant because so far no one has been able to prove that aquatic dinosaurs existed, Joanna Wright, assistant professor of geology at the University of Colorado-Denver, said Monday. There were swimming reptiles that are now extinct, Wright said.

So it's pretty much necessary to have the speculation in order to make the article significant... don't you think? The idea that this animal swam out to sea and fed off of fish etc. Other wise it just becomes an animal with no better swimming skills... and no better intention than my dog has. Isn't that right?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So it's pretty much necessary to have the speculation in order to make the article significant... don't you think? The idea that this animal swam out to sea and fed off of fish etc. Other wise it just becomes an animal with no better swimming skills... and no better intention than my dog has. Isn't that right?"

At this point its behavior is highly speculative. But you said, "and we haven't found anything to tell us what made the prints...", meaning we can't even have an idea what type of animal it was. That's nonsense. It's not just *another animal*, it's a dinosaur. We can tell by the tracks. The article never said that the rest was anything more than tentative; it said more info is needed. There WAS evidence that the tracks were made going into water though. But the scientists, unlike creationists, know when to be cautious in making assertions. That's because the scientists who made the discovery are not arrogant enough to think they know everything.