Part of that was probably made up.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
new dinosaur find
Named Chilesaurus, deemed bizarre in the evolutionary sense the creature belongs to the theropod group that includes the carnivorous tyrannosaurs and velociraptors but these were plant-eating animals the size of a horse. Instead of sharp claws it had stumpy fingers along with other oddities like a horned beak, flat teeth, small head and slender neck with stocky forearms. Archaeologists working on the site said they hope to return to find the creature's reachers and baskets and finally close the chapter on these dinosaur's debilitatingly short front arms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
(1) I've got one of those grabber things. Two, actually. Just the thing for tidying up the yard. Sweetgum balls. Walnuts. Shrunken heads.
(2) There are people out there who believe that God buried dinosaur bones to test our faith in the biblical account of creation and all that goes with it.
Takes all kinds.
The evolutionary muddle of a beast grew to the size of a small horse and was the most abundant animal to be found 145 million years ago, in what is now the Aysén region of Patagonia.
I'm confused.
It's a new find, right? but they are saying these dinosaurs were "the most abundant".
So they found large numbers?
or just the one?
If they only found one, and it's all new, how do you make the leap to "most abundant"?
or is this just more sloppy reporting/ sloppy "journalism"?
continuing on..
On returning to the site, the researchers found bones from at least a dozen of the strange animals, including four nearly complete and well-preserved skeletons.
ok - at least a dozen.
I make a de-lish vegetarian chile.
Learned two new things this morning listening to Richard Dawkins:
(1) South America and Africa were separated from one another at the rate of growth of our fingernails.
(2) The claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old is like claiming that New York and San Francisco are 700 yards apart.
Never heard those before.
Who claims it's 6,000 years old? Is Dawkins listening to people I never bother listening to then formulating his argument around them as if they represent all Christian thinking? I must say, I find Christians more open minded, more uncertain of their own certainty than the atheists who publish and who appear to be so influential.
My Christian relatives all go,"who are these tea partiers anyway?"
They haven't a clue, 6 million years, 6 billion years, 5 trillion dollars, 20 trillion dollars, those words, those numbers mean nothing more than "very large number" to them. Incomprehensible. They're very open to the idea of archaeology opening insights to origins of life.
When Dawkins makes an argument around somebody saying 6 million years then I make an argument about Dawkins sucking my 10 million inch dick, he's just pulling numbers out his ass to represent opponents to have an argument with. Does he name someone specifically who propounds such nonsense? Because I do listen to Christians and I NEVER hear them talking about any of this, only Dawkins and the like talking about them talking like that. Maybe they do. But I do not hear them.
6 thousand years? Pish tosh. Nobody says that.
Hard to believe, but they're out there. I was surprised when I found out, not too long ago, about it in the context of a child custody dispute. The mother was an school teacher and the father belonged to one of those fundamentalist Christian mega-churches along the interstate. Tough case.
One of the disappointing things about Dawkins is he seems to truly believe that religion, anywhere, is a threat to science, everywhere.
And he seems to be arguing, now, that raising a child to believe in religion is akin to child abuse.
That's a bit much, IMHO.
Post a Comment