Replies

"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.

I think this article was very unscientific. I think it intentionally took liberties with what can and can't be known about this animal... and I think it did it for the sensationalism. So that the scientist can make the talk circuit. That's my observation of the article.

A fair and accurate representation would be to say ... we found dinasour tracks... we think it's 165 million years old.... it appears they headed into water. We're looking for bones to figure out what the animal looked like.