Slashdot Mirror
Museum IDs New Species of Dinosaur
Uryugen writes "A new dinosaur species was a plant-eater with yard-long horns over its eyebrows, suggesting an evolutionary middle step between older dinosaurs with even larger horns and the small-horned creatures that followed, experts said.
The dinosaur's horns, thick as a human arm, are like those of triceratops — which came 10 million years later. However, this animal belonged to a subfamily that usually had bony nubbins a few inches long above their eyes"
Welcome our new Horny Dinosaur Overlords
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Humans got the evolutionary shaft.
Human: "Oooh, look at me! I've got an enlarged Broca's region in my frontal lobe! DE-FENSE!"
Zuniceratops: "Oh yeah? Well how about this--BAM, the ole' horn in the eye!"
Good thing we're separated by millions of years...
</evolutionist's response>
--
<creationist's response>
For thousands of years, lawyers have been laying the foundation for the greatest devil inspired hoax to grace God's earth
</creationist's response>
My work here is dung.
Or it proves that God's a really devious bastard who likes to test our faith by leaving fake fossils to fool the unbelievers.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Its gratifying every time one of these "missing links" is found. My favorite is probably the lobe-finned fishes:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0Of course the creationists will just deny these anyway, but then again, they would never argued about this for so long if they were rational to begin with.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
I think he is talking about these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii
Sorry, anytime I see nubbin I'm going to think of Chandler from Friends.
BlackNova Traders
The first dinosaur categorized as "Herbivore and incidental carnivore" whenever it happened to accidentally spear something tasty hiding behind the plant it was eating.
Not at all. The fossils are real, but the dinosaurs co-existed with humans relatively recently, probably between the time when God created the Earth and the middle ages - and some dinosaurs probably still exist today. I can prove all of this because it's written in an old book. It's also written plainly in the Dinosaur article on Conservapedia.
(I'm thinking of signing up as a Conservapedia editor purely to expand on articles like these.)
Oh, the creationists won't deny them. You see, instead of one gap, they can now point to two! They've set rules by which they can't lose.
Yes, those truly are "missing links" ;)
4 05_060405_fish.htmlh otogalleries/tetrapod/index.html
Nice fine nonetheless, here are the "non-missing links":
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/p
Cool, a new source of oil!
And you guys said it wasn't renewable. See, that's why I like science. They are always finding new species. More oil. More oil. I'm going to go buy a Hummer.
Dino-Poop Power for the People.
Wait...Oh, I see the flaw. Nevermind.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Conservapedia have done it, they have beaten wikipedia!
Yes, Wikipedia are no-longer the least authoritative source of information on the internet.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
That article is both funny and bad. It's funny because they continue to spout creationist nonsense, even though everything that is said has been refuted at least a million times, and bad because it continues the propogation of junk science. Specifically, the part about humans and dinosaurs co-existing.
As if to reinforce the continuing spread of misinformation, there is a christian theater not too far from me which is running a production showing men and dinosaurs living side-by-side. Sadly, they're not saying it's a work of fiction.
*sigh* I guess it's easier to believe in a fairy tale than in reality.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Unquestionably, it's an important find," said Peter Dodson, a University of Pennsylvania paleontologist. "It was sort of the grandfather or great-uncle of the really diverse horned dinosaurs that came after it."
Ryan named the new dinosaur Albertaceratops nesmoi, after the region and Cecil Nesmo, a rancher near Manyberries, Alberta, who has helped fossil hunters.
The creature was about 20 feet long and lived 78 million years ago.
The oldest known horned dinosaur in North America is called Zuniceratops. It lived 12 million years before Ryan's find, and also had large horns.
That makes the newly found creature an intermediate between older forms with large horns and later small-horned relatives, said State of Utah paleontologist Jim Kirkland, who with Douglas Wolfe identified Zuniceratops in New Mexico in 1998. He predicted then that something like Ryan's find would turn up.
"Lo and behold, evolutionary theory actually works," he said. - Lo and behold? We knew that evolution works for a long long time now, but does anyone know whether these remains can be used for DNA sequencing so an evolution map could be setup for such creatures?
You can't handle the truth.
...it translated in my head as "Museum Intelligently Designs New Species of Dinosaur".
I've obviously been getting involved in too many evolution-related debates.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/11 20_021120_raptor.html
Creationists try to deny this too, but there's concrete, physical evidence so you'd be a fool to deny it right?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I am surprised whales don't have horns.
You too, huh? I feel the same. It's one of the most surprising things I know. It's just baffling. I'm not even sure I believe it -- it just seems so far-fetched.
Yet amazingly -- it's true! They don't have horns! Unless you glue one or more horns on! Which is very dangerous to you *and* the whale, trust me on that.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Parlimentary inquiry.
How do we know this is indicative of an entire species, and not just a single freak of nature?
Have you read my journal today?
Can we call this one a Brontosaurus and settle the whole problem?
If something has been refuted, it has been shown to be false based on the evidence. In the case of the continued, wrongheaded stance by the American Taliban that dinosaurs and humans lived together, it has been conclusively shown that the two did not coexist at any time in the past. Every supposed example that has been usedt to show that this event did happen has been shown to be false.
The biggest reason for the refutation is that the majority of these claims are based on the false stance that the Earth is only 6000 years old. It has been shown, 100%, to be billions of years old yet there are those who refuse to acknowledge it and continue to spout nonsense, thereby passing on their ignorance to others.
If DNA isn't the start of something living, then what is? If you say it's an unknown being, then you have to show evidence for that being.
And no, it is not easier to believe in christianity when one considers it is based the idea that a woman got pregant without being touched by a man when we know for an absolute fact the only way for a woman to get pregnat is to be impregnated by a man.
Apparently you do believe in fairy tales.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower