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.

[DittoJed2]

Darwin's theology plays into his theory. It plays into what he actually saw and what he was wanting to see. It also reflects the theology of the vast number of evolutionists since. Evolution by natural processes (that is macro evolution) is a belief system accepted by faith. Nobody saw it. They say there is evidence, but biases play HEAVILY into that evidence. I'm intellectually honest enough to say that Creationism is a theory too accepted by faith. The contention that it is without evidence, however, is just willful ignorance.

As far as the Unitarians go, I'm not going to get into a big debate about them, but no I am not the ultimate arbiter. God's Word speaks for itself and will judge the living and the dead. Jesus made specific truth claims for himself, and the early church agreed. If you don't agree with those claims, you are not Christian, you are something else.

[f.Christian]

Try asparagus ... it cured me --- from warts one time !

[Right Wing Professor]

The hierarchy does not, or at least they don't teach it but that is another thread.

I was brought up, baptized and confirmed Catholic, and spent 11 years in Catholic school. I know what the Catholic Church teaches.

[StolarStorm]

I'll try that. Gotta go. Have a good weekend.

[DittoJed2]

Yes, but do you know the Bible? The Catholic institution teaches a lot that is not in Scripture. All of the Catholics I know (and love, including family members) know their catechism very well, but don't know the Bible.

[Right Wing Professor]

Your source, when it discusses Isaiah 40:22, truncates the end of the verse " ...that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in". This hardly adds to its credibility. Why did he omit that? Of course, because it contradicts his argument. So much for intellectual honesty.

Once again; if the heavens are as a tent, how do you pitch a tent on a sphere? If the heavens are as a curtain, how do you put curtains round a sphere so they look the same everywhere on the sphere?

The only logical explanation is that Isaiah meant to write exactly what he wrote; that the earth looks like a flat disk, with the heavens as a curtain or tent around it. That's quite an evocative picture - if you've ever walked in the desert at night, it describes exactly the feeling you get - and since all of Isaiah is a description of a vision, you can even retain biblical literalism and read it as it was written. What you cannot do is claim this means the Bible said the earth was spherical.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Thank you for the very good post.

[f.Christian]

The 1st twelve words of the catholic faith - religion ...

I believe in God the father almighty creator of heaven and earth !

[gitmo]

Tuna, Swordfish, others.

[balrog666]

Darwin's theology plays into his theory.

Baloney. And in any case, the modern Theory of Evolution has long since moved past Darwin's thesis of 150 years ago.

[DittoJed2]

And you can't claim that round does not mean spherical. I can picture the heavens like a tent overhead. Isaiah wasn't given a scientific definition here, just what it looked like. If you have to, stick the tent poles in the North and South pole and along the equator. I don't care what you can do, but I can conceptualize it. He is using poetic and not scientific language to describe his concept. He doesn't say the earth stretches out like a piece of paper. He says it is a circle. A circle can be 2 or 3 dimensional as can a square.

Regardless, the point still stands that Christians have not been the ones to postulate a flat earth. You may find individual examples of people identifying themselves as Christians who have done so, but they are quite few and far between. The flat-earth tag was put upon us in the 1800s and is a LIE and a SLUR! To put it in a context you may understand, it would be like saying that Republicans believe that abortion is just fine because Arnold Schwarzeneggar said so and he's a Republican. It is an inductive fallacy in that one renegade Republican believes that way so the statement "Republicans don't believe in abortion" is false. The latter may be a blanket statement, but it is far closer to the truth than to say Republicans are pro-abortion. Likewise, when you make the claim that Christians are flat earthers, you commit the same error. It isn't true, and if you study the subject you'll find it is flat out false.

[DittoJed2]

Baloney. And in any case, the modern Theory of Evolution has long since moved past Darwin's thesis of 150 years ago.

About the baloney, So, you don't think a person's presupposition's play into their conclusions? About the rest of this sentence, that is HIGHLY debatable.

[DittoJed2]

Why do you insist on calling me a "he"?

And, please don't speak for what I do or do not believe about the Catholic church.

[balrog666]

If you established that Darwin was really Dr. Moriarty, or Jack-the-Ripper, or a secret communist, or a Nazi-sympathizer, or a pedophile, or the Anti-Christ, or the second coming of Jesus, it would simply have no bearing on the modern Theory of Evolution.

Somehow, you just don't seem to understand how simple and obvious that is.

[ALS]

Indeed it was and the apology is fully accepted and thanks be given for doing the right thing, which is quite rare from the evo side.

[Right Wing Professor]

A circle can be 2 or 3 dimensional as can a square.

No, it can't. A circle is a two dimensional object. In three dimensions we have cylinders, we have spheres, we have ellipsoids, but we don't have circles. Regardless, the point still stands that Christians have not been the ones to postulate a flat earth

No, it does not. Some Christians thought it was flat, and claimed biblical upport for it. Now others are claiming it's spherical and claiming biblical support for that. Let me remind your original statement was "Many many years ago most scientists believed the earth was flat (incidentally, the Bible has always claimed the earth was round). ". You've withdrawn the claim that most scientists believed the earth was flat. And you've not shown the Bible says the earth is spherical. You were the one who started the rant about how people claim Christians said the earth was flat. I never made that claim. I said that the passage that you claim implies the earth is spherical, in fact says it's a crcle, and some Christians - not all - have interpeted that to mean the earth is flat.

[DittoJed2]

If you established that Darwin was really Dr. Moriarty, or Jack-the-Ripper, or a secret communist, or a Nazi-sympathizer, or a pedophile, or the Anti-Christ, or the second coming of Jesus, it would simply have no bearing on the modern Theory of Evolution.

Somehow, you just don't seem to understand how simple and obvious that is.

Oh, I understand, alright. It doesn't matter what the source of your information is, if it spouts evolution you'll defend it to the death. You will refuse to consider any debunking information.

The facts are Darwin approached the evidence with an agenda. He had been losing his faith in the Bible for some time, and was delighted to come up with a theory that would help fill the hole. The fact that he approached the evidence in this way has had far reaching impact on how the theory has proceeded; and the bias with which he approached the evidence is rampant today in scientific circles. He read Lyell, liked Lyell explaining away God, and then went about trying to prove it (failing in the process, but I guess that's irrelevant too). Scientists today also like the idea of no God to be accountable to, so they proceed with the madness (also failing in the process, but that too is irrelevant). Other scientists are simply too brainwashed to know the difference between theory and fact and have closed their minds to anything that goes against the dogma.

[f.Christian]

v-a called you a socialist ... probably just kidding --- I hope !

[ALS]

Christian bashers like vadey don't have enough credibility to matter regardless of the yipping.

[f.Christian]

... oops --- virginia-america !