Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
2 hours, 55 minutes ago
|
|
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.
|
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.
Why?
Right. Shows what an anti-science mentality can do. Oh, to be totally fair about it, there is one potential tyrant who has had biology training. The current dictator of Syria is a physician. Of course, he never planned to go into the family business. If he turns out to be no different from the other middle-east tyrants, I guess Darwin will get the blame for his misdeeds.
I hope you apologized to JR.
balrog
By the same logic, there is no more value in a dog than a bacterium. Clearly that's false; people, including atheists, love their dogs. But more importantly, why does people's origin have to determine how we value them? If a baby is placed on our doorstep because the mother randomly chose a place to abandon it, does that mean the baby has no value?
And, without a moral law from above, the result is an unstable democracy.
The countries of Scandinavia are thriving democracies, and have been for a long time, yet active religious observance is under 5% in all of them. In contrast, Germany, Spain and Italy are far more religious, and yet all three have been fascist in the last 60 years. There seems to be little correlation between religiosity and democracy.
I am truely mystified as to why this sounds silly. What specifically is silly?
You definitely don't understand it if you don't believe it. If you have read it and reject what it says why would I presume to think that you would allow yourself to be shown to have missed something by the likes of me. I know the human will better than that.
And what's the problem with the exponential argument thing except probably my spelling which is terrible. It is really silly to think that mankind would live like cave man and accomplish nothing for 2 million years then suddenly start using tools and building things. Noah, if I may use a bible example, built a ship 450 feet long but what was his technological basis? Not much. Because man doesn't sit in a cave for 2 million years then spring out and build an ark.
There is no such thing as "Darwinian philosophy." The closest you might come would be laissez faire capitalism. The Nazi philosophy was based on Theosophy and its corrupted teachings that God created a perfect race (the Aryans) and all other races are corrupted, or fallen, versions of the Aryans.
Simply because your pastor said Naziism was based on Darwinism does not make it so. And, your contention of being a historian means you hold yourself to a higher level of standards than that of the average historically-illiterate bohunk that occasionally pops up on these threads. We've been down this road dozens of times. You won't find many quotes wherein Hitler claims to be fulfilling Darwin's work, but we can post several wherein he claims to be doing God's work.
You opened up this can of worms. The discussion was going nicely up to this point. It can continue along that path, but the choice is up to you.
Apart from me, apparently.
However, I believe you are drawing a rather flawed conclusion regarding other planets and the possibility of life elsewhere. The lack of biblical details concerning non-terran events does not mean that those events did not happen, IMHO. Additionally, the quotation of the bible regarding God sending his only son to earth does not preclude life elsewhere. It only precludes that his son (human male child) has not been there - which would be entirely likely if some non-terran life form was not human, would it not? Even the verse from Genesis regarding man being created in the image of God doesn't mean life is terran only.
Also, please understand I am not debating the validity of your beliefs, or the bible. I am debating your interpretations of inferences.
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.