ashwini Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 just came across this link....thought it might make an interesting read... http://autofeed.msn.co.in/pandorav3/output/News/d41de39d-3a1b-47f3-ac45-deb1af6667fb.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Yes. Very interesting. The current issue of New Scientist [15 Jan 2005] adds two points: The group to which these creatures belong (contrary to the title of the piece) was not canines, but triconodonts. These are apparently absent from the fossil record by the late Cretaceous, therefore these large mammals may well have died out before the dinosaurs. There had been hints of large mammals before, based upon fragmentary remains (mainly teeth), but these are the first clear cut examples. Anyone want to take a bet that within six months a couple more crawl out of the woodwork, or rather from a re-examination of current fossil collections? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg18524824.400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburngirl05 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I thought it was interesting that the two specimens were judged to be two separate species, implying that there were at least a handful of different niches for mammals bigger than the shrew-sized critters I'd always pictured during the Mesozoic. And you're right, Ophiolite, fossil animals are like cockroaches, lol for every one you find, there were 1000 more you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashwini Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 fossils animals are like cockroaches, lol for every one you find, there were 1000 more you don't. very well said, i agree with u! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firedragon52 Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Believe it or not, but someone at my school (University of Pittsburgh) tried to use this discovery as a way to prove the "bias" within the science community. See for yourself: http://www.pittnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/01/25/41f613c328202 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Wow, that's so wrong it hurts my brain. But that's why I avoid creationist tripe anyway. I'm even more amazed that someone with such an obvious learning disability could even become a senior. Must be a Business major. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburngirl05 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 PZ Meyers at Pharyngula (one of my favorite science blogs) had a really good critique of the creationist take on the find, here's the link, it's definitely worth reading for anyone interested. http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/repenomamus_was_a_flood_victim_snort/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Having read both links,the only bias i found was from the evolutionist paper.Putting aside the authors motive, the first link only highlighted the finds relevence regarding the time line of mammals and dinosaurs.The second was clearly a ranting about creationism,which when discussing the finds and the implications of such.Failed to offer anything constructive regarding the fossils.As Mokle added his own bias ranting,i would be more inclined to find the fossils a great discovery.Anything that helps our understanding of the past scientifically benefits the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhrerkeebs Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Having read both links,the only bias i found was from the evolutionist paper. Whoa now buddy. The first article is definitely biased against evolution, as is shown clearly in this (incorrect) statement: Notice how they are now trying to use this evidence, which challenges their current view of evolution and origins, and twist it to support the now defunct dino-to-bird theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburngirl05 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 The Pharyngula blog had an entry about the discovery when it was first made covered the traditional science about the fossil and its implications, as opposed to a rebuttal against creationst claims, it can be read here: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/repenomamus_giganticus/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 It ate psittacosaurs? Big deal. Psittacosaurs are the ankle-biters of the dinosaur world. I thought it was going to be about bear sized mammals that ate hadrosaurs. Why are creationists all over this thing? Ooops I have to remember "because they are creationists." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Why are creationists all over this thing? Ooops I have to remember "because they are creationists." I think it's about time creationism was officially classified as a mental disorder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mart Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 I think it's about time creationism was officially classified as a mental disorder. That was a joke wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 I doubt it. Aardvark doesn't do things by halves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mart Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Hope he doesn't get into any position of political power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 After building up a picture - over several years - of the kind of world he might produce in such a scenario, I can assure you that there would never be a dull moment for the prudent citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 That was a joke wasn't it? A joke? Creationists are characterised by an incapacity for reason, logic or the understanding of factual evidence. They display a complete lack of intellectual honesty or constistency, accept in regard of a rigourous and relentless twisting of every fact, event and opinion to fit with their deep seated delusions. On an objective basis it can be seen that creationists suffer from is a deep seated paranoid delusional pyschosis. As such they should be removed from society and subjected to treatment until they may be cured. This seems the only reasonable response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I think of them as merely people who reject facts and observations that don't agree with their religious beliefs. Rejecting evolution is as stubborn as not accepting that I am typing this becasue it makes me uncomfortable or I just don't want to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I think of them as merely people who reject facts and observations that don't agree with their religious beliefs[/b']. Rejecting evolution is as stubborn as not accepting that I am typing this becasue it makes me uncomfortable or I just don't want to believe it. To reject facts and observations because they disagree with your beliefs makes your beliefs delusional. People who twist all facts and observations to fit with a delusional system of thinking are, by definition, mentally ill. Therefore creationists should be secured in mental health hospitals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 If we played it right we could get them to undergo a second exodus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Tell them to run into the sea, after all, all they need is faith for the waters to part, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I was thinking more like a big rocket made out of wheel-barrows and old washing machines. To the sun or bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I dunno about making a Rocket from these, but if ya can get yer head around a pretty decent go-cart, I`m in we`ll need a battery or 2 though, non the less, perfectly possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Tell them to run into the sea, after all, all they need is faith for the waters to part, right? Lol!!! makes you wonder if some would take you up on the offer. After all, "faith is a virtue". Riiiight. Its a great virtue to believe in and potentially devote your life to something for which you have absolutely no solid proof for. Its a great virtue to follow something unquestioningly and (for some of our friends in the south) let it run your life. I wouldn't go so far as to say creationists are mentally ill, unless religious fanticism or severe stubborness are mental illnesses. Ummm okay yeah they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I think of them as merely people who reject facts and observations that don't agree with their religious beliefs[/b']. Which pretty well sums up the attitudes and actions of most geologists and pretty well all geophysicists when they rejected Wegener's theory of Continental Drift. Blind obstinacy is not limited to creationists, nor outwith the behaviour of scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now