Giant Dinosaur Bird Discovered

Cyclist110 writes "The BBC has the story of the discovery, in Inner Mongolia, of a Dinosaur bird twice the size of a man and weighing in at over 3000 lbs. From the article: 'Chinese researchers uncovered the fossilised remains of the flightless giant in the Erlian basin in Inner Mongolia. The researchers had originally thought they had found the bones of a tyrannosaur — the group of dinosaurs to which T. rex belongs — due to their large size.'"

Comments

Discredited

[phantomcircuit]

So this will be discredited when?

Re:Discredited

[mark0]

Why is the parent modded down? There is a long history of fake fossils coming out of China. The posting is, perhaps, a bit terse, but hardly a troll.

Re:Discredited

[cyfer2000]

Did you bother to read the white text in the website you referred before you jump to the yellow text? While at least, all Chinese fossil out side of China are illegal, because exporting fossil is forbidden by Chinese law. We can not come to a conclusion that all of Chinese fossils out side of China are fake, but there is a big chance.

As fossil discovered in China by scientist, your source said "China has an immense scientific wealth of genuine fossil deposits."

Re:Discredited

[mark0]

Did you bother to read the white text in the website you referred before you jump to the yellow text? Yes, of course I did.

While at least, all Chinese fossil out side of China are illegal, because exporting fossil is forbidden by Chinese law. We can not come to a conclusion that all of Chinese fossils out side of China are fake, but there is a big chance. We aren't at odds here. There are plenty of legitimate fossils in China. At the same time, there are plenty of fakes that hit the news are are show to be bunk. I believe that shows that you are right, I am right, and the parent posting in this thread simply refers to that history of bunk that overshadows the legitimate.

Re:Discredited

[tacocat]

I can't comment on any of that, but I find it difficult to believe that you can have a 3,000 pound bird that is only twice the size of man being capable of flight. Rather it might be capable of plummet, thereby making it extinct.

That's like a flying SUV only the size of a Triumph TR-7. It makes for a very dense bird.

Re:Discredited

[MillionthMonkey]

We can not come to a conclusion that all of Chinese fossils out side of China are fake, but there is a big chance.

I have bought fossils from China. They sell everything over there no matter what they say. I had a Chinese trilobite embedded in a slab of sedimentary rock. Then my house burned down. When I went back to salvage it later I made my huge scientific discovery: trilobites were made of plastic!

Re:Discredited

[MichaelSmith]

trilobites were made of plastic!

Clear evidence of intelligent design.

Re:Discredited

[mcpkaaos]

Sounds plausible. Most ID believers are themselves made up of mostly plastic, so why not a 6,000 year old bird?

Re:Discredited

[HeroreV]

The article says it was flightless. You know what else says it was flightless? The summary. Can't you at least read the summary?

Re:Discredited

[cammoblammo]

My knowledge of Asian politics and geography is a little hazy, and I haven't read TFA, but the summary says that fossils come from Mongolia. So if these are coming out of China, the researchers must have taken them there first...

Re:Discredited

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the parent modded down?

Because "Black September" has, figuratively, with the explosive increase of popularity of the 'net, extended to every core-blog and with it dragged down every democratically-oriented, user-governed site. Slashdot, once a bastion for those on the right of the bell curve, has like everything else been corrupted by an influx of warm bodies, mostly young and unthinking, molded by the irresistible siren song of peer pressure, predictably cowed into succumbing to herd morality.

Note that the GPP was modded up only in the wake of your criticism and the modding-up of such.

Re:Discredited

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way this can be a fake. Everybody knows of these animals; they even are alive today

Re:Discredited

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too!

Re:Discredited

[cyfer2000]

Inner Mongolia is part of China.

Re:Discredited

[paleo2002]

China has been a major source of new theropod fossils over the past 15 or so years. I have friends at the AMNH who are working on dinosaur and bird fossils from the Gobi. The AMNH cosponsors digs with Chinese researchers all the time. Sometimes their government is not very enthusiastic about sharing material, but we often work something out.

Check out http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/gigantorapt or-erlianensis-from-china.html for more information. It turns out a Japanese film crew was there when the fossil was being uncovered. You may also want to look at the link on the same page to the original journal article for this find. Hopefully Nature can live up to the high academic standards of slashdot readers.

Re:Discredited

[bushidobolo]

I wonder if this person even read the article. I suppose, without reading the full article, that the first iteration of thought on seeing the word "bird" you might think "flying creature" but a second iteration of thought, depending on your knowledge, could reveal that there actually flightless birds out there. Think "Ostrich".

Creationists

[Iam9376]

I'm more interested in how the Creationists will attempt to explain this one

Perhaps they'll claim it was man's best friend?

meh.

Re:Creationists

[TheFlyingWonka]

It was obviously some sort of dragon.

Re:Creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

No they'll claim that it's really a very big turkey and that over time their species is getting smaller. [evolving how ironic] or even better it was killed by the great non-existent flood that also killed their coconut-eating T-rexs.

Re:Creationists

[Iam9376]

I always wondered about the "great flood".

I fully accept I may be wrong, but it is my understanding, if you completely submerge a plant of any kind (ie: a Tree), doesn't that kill the plant.

With that reasoning, wouldn't all plant life have died as a result of this "great flood"?

Re:Creationists

[jeiler]

"With that reasoning, wouldn't all plant life have died as a result of this "great flood"?

Yes, it would kill the plant life ... but that doesn't matter, because they'll think of some "reason" why it wouldn't, even if they have to fall back on "Goddidit." Creationism (like any other a priori position) does not rely on logic, reason, or evidence.

That's not to say that I feel that religion or faith or a priori knowledge is worthless--heck, I'm a theist myself. But (IMHO) when a person's gotten to the point that they'll explain away fundamental facts--as Creationists attempt to do--then argument is a waste of time.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible.

Re:Creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how you define the "Great Flood". Many will say that the flood was localized to the known civilized world at the time while others will say that it was indeed a global flood. Now I don't know much about plants either but needless to say plant life would be fine if it was localized. Although even if the parent plant was completely submerged I'd think the possibility of the plants' seeds surviving and taking root later on would still be pretty good.

Re:Creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is no plant life underwater.

None at all.

Re:Creationists

[Iam9376]

That's not the point however, the plants that live underwater are designed to.

Trees for instance, do not exist underwater, and I'm sure that any underwater plant produces oxygen.

Re:Creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

God put it there to test us. 8-P

Re:Creationists

[trolltalk.com]

"the plants that live underwater are designed to.

You may want to rephrase that - or attribute the "design" to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (unless you're in favor of "Intelligent Design" and Cretionism).

Re:Creationists

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep thats what I think :)

Re:Creationists

[Tablizer]

I'm more interested in how the Creationists will attempt to explain this one

"Big Daddy" God had a hunkerin' for fried chicken, and KFC was too small for him.

Re:Creationists

[Ticklemonster]

It was created to dupe people, duh. (sorry, that just leaped out at me, so I had to put it here, please don't troll me!!!)

Re:Creationists

[Iam9376]

Why must the word "design" imply "intelligent design" ?

You could just as easily stipulate that the plants evolved into that 'design'.

For all I (we) know plants originated underwater and evolved out onto land.

meh.

Re:Creationists

[sumdumass]

How about seeds? They can survive being submerged for quite a while. And no, plants don't automatically die under water. I have a bottom field that floods out every spring for several weeks at a time and I have never had to plant grass or shrubs on it. It is protected from a fast moving current since the stream that floods it is small and the flood runs over a dike so you don't have all the plant life eroding or washing away.

I guess dieing out might be a possible and probably is a fact. However I'm not sure how long this would take. I know Fescue grass, turnips, chicory, wild peas, and chufas all with survive being submerged for two or three weeks at a time. I use this field specifically for hunting and have all those plants in it. As for god did it? I don't care to touch that. I'm just sure that plants don't necessarily die off after being under water like animals would. I'm guessing they can last a lot longer then we think.

Re:Creationists

[--daz--]

This is somewhat on-topic, please bear with me...

First, let's establish that 'Creationists' don't necessarily deny Evolution.

What you're mostly referring to are Evangelical Protestant Bible-only Christians.

'Christian', for 1,500 years meant 'Roman Catholic' (or, after 1,200 years Catholic or Orthodox, very very similar).

After the Reformation, many Christians threw authority out the window and started wondering around in Theology making stuff up as they went along and now we have Bible-only Christians that think every word is LITERALLY (as opposed to LITERALISTICALLY which is what most rational, thinking people read the Bible as) the absolute direct translation of God's will (despite their lose, error-prone translations into English, etc). These people think the Universe was created in precisely 6 24-hour periods and think (I'm not kidding, I heard one say this) that Christ himself use the King James Version to quote scripture. Using LITERAL interpretation, they would also think that 'Raining Cats and Dogs' literally means that canines and felines were falling from the sky.

(again, bear with me, I'm going to bring this back on topic, I swear)

Proper Christianity, that is Christianity that stuck with what Christ intended and with the proper Apostolic Authority and proper scriptural interpretation based on ACCURATE translations of the Bible (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek/Russian/Etc Orthodox Church), do NOT interpret the Bible this way, and instead interpret LITERALISTICALY which is to say that 'Raining cats and dogs' has a specific literalistic meaning and is not intended to be interpreted literally.

Now, here we go: True Christians know that God created the Universe according to his own design in a specific fashion in a specific order and that the FULL details are NOT included in Genesis.

It's ENTIRELY possible that when Genesis talks about the 6th day God made animals, it means 'after 400 million years, vertebrate lifeforms evolved from invertebrates'.

The Catholic Church does not specifically deny nor promote Evolution (it's possible there's an even more complete and compelling theory that fleshes out some of the problems with Evolution).

So, please don't lump 'Creationists' (true Authority Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) in with off-in-the-wilderness Evangelical Christians who are making things up and interpreting the Bible in a theological vacuum.

Re:Creationists

[Taco Meat]

I am of the Bahai faith, so I don't know much about yours.

If you don't believe your own holy book, why not find a new religion? Or maybe just stop trying and do what you feel is right?

I am not kidding, Americans are a bunch of lemmings.

Re:Creationists

[jeiler]

How about seeds? They can survive being submerged for quite a while.

Some seeds can--some can't. Even for those that can ... it could take weeks or months for the relatively fast-growing grasses to recover, but years for things like trees.

And no, plants don't automatically die under water.

I'm used to discussing these issues with YEC "Biblical Literalists," so remember you're talking about a whole year under water--and you're not just dealing with the water itself, you're also dealing with the pressure of all that water weighing down on the plants, the lack of sunlight, the absence of the normal reproductive cycle, the lack of pollinating insects. Even if your trees survived, your annuals are gone ... and with only two of each pollinating insects (for those plants that need insects to pollinate), and the necessary wait of perhaps several year for the recovery of the pollinating animals.

The big problem is that, no matter what possibilities one brings up that certain things might have survived a worldwide flood (and no matter what evidence is used to counter those possibilities), the topic is not one that will be solved by debate. When someone believes in proposition X as strongly as YECs believe in Biblical literality, there is literally no amount of evidence in the world that will change their mind. And I don't mean that as an insult--for most (perhaps all) of humanity, concepts that are accepted as "faith issues" cannot be rationally critiqued. When we believe in something that strongly, we will reject any and all evidence that contradicts those beliefs.

I read a study somewhere (can't find it now) that the brain will reward itself for defending its beliefs--the pleasure center of the brain is stimulated by justifying one's beliefs, even if one has to deny facts to do so. The context of the study was political: the subjects would be shown politicians that they favored doing things that they politically opposed, and if the person could suppress the memory of the politician saying something they disagreed with, the limbic center of the brain was stimulated. Evidently, we as human beings are hardwired to hold fast to our beliefs ... even if we have to turn a blind eye to the facts to do so.

Re:Creationists

[oddman]

Where in the above post does it say that we don't believe our own holy book? The point is that there are different ways to read the book. Some of those ways are more rational than others.

As for us being lemmings, do you follow a unique version of your faith? Did someone teach it to you? Is your family Bahai, your community? Why aren't you a lemming, too?

Re:Creationists

[mixtape5]

After the Reformation, many Christians threw authority out the window and started wondering around in Theology making stuff up as they went along and now we have Bible-only Christians that think every word is LITERALLY (as opposed to LITERALISTICALLY which is what most rational, thinking people read the Bible as) the absolute direct translation of God's will (despite their lose, error-prone translations into English, etc).

First of all, "wondering around in Theology making stuff up" is a very interesting statement considering the rest of your post. How do you suppose the people who think the 6 days of creation mentioned in the Bible did happen however they took place over millions of years arrived at that conclusion? Another problem I have with your opening sentence is that you claim the Christians who have thrown away the authority of the Bible are the ones who believe it...this doesn't even make sense from a non-religious standpoint.

I will concede to you and agree that the Bible inevitably looses some of its meaning when it is translated into any language other than its original. However, you forget that it was translated from something, and most theologians do not open up a copy of the KJV and go solely off of its translation. Many Bible schools offer courses in ancient Greek and Hebrew, enabling their students to analyze the original laguage texts as well.

These people think the Universe was created in precisely 6 24-hour periods and think (I'm not kidding, I heard one say this) that Christ himself use the King James Version to quote scripture. Using LITERAL interpretation, they would also think that 'Raining Cats and Dogs' literally means that canines and felines were falling from the sky.

Can I ask you why it is so hard to believe that a supreme being could create the universe in *only* 6 24-hour days? In addition I encourage you to examine this paragraph about the six literal days:

When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24-hour day.2,3 There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long. (source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/da ys.asp)

Proper Christianity, that is Christianity that stuck with what Christ intended and with the proper Apostolic Authority and proper scriptural interpretation based on ACCURATE translations of the Bible (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek/Russian/Etc Orthodox Church), do NOT interpret the Bible this way, and instead interpret LITERALISTICALY which is to say that 'Raining cats and dogs' has a specific literalistic meaning and is not intended to be interpreted literally.

I would love to know what "ACCURATE translations of the Bible" the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek/Russian/Etc Orthodox Church use that is not available to any Bible scholar. Claiming that "Proper Christianity" is based on anything but the Bible seems a bit ridiculous to me--I would argue that proper Christianity is rooted in following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Now, here we go: True Christians know that God created the Universe according to his own design in a specific fashion in a specific order and that the FULL details are NOT included in Genesis.

It's ENTIRELY possible that when Genesis talks about the 6th day God made animals, it means 'after 400 million years, vertebrate lifeforms evolved from invertebrates'.

This is actu

Re:Creationists

[mixtape5]

I'm used to discussing these issues with YEC "Biblical Literalists," so remember you're talking about a whole year under water--and you're not just dealing with the water itself, you're also dealing with the pressure of all that water weighing down on the plants, the lack of sunlight, the absence of the normal reproductive cycle, the lack of pollinating insects. Even if your trees survived, your annuals are gone ... and with only two of each pollinating insects (for those plants that need insects to pollinate), and the necessary wait of perhaps several year for the recovery of the pollinating animals. According to the Bible the flood did not last a year, 40 days and 40 nights. Or about 1.3 months. Also...couldn't there have been a stash of seed on the arc as well? The ones that can't survive underwater simply could have been replanted.

Re:Creationists

[cammoblammo]

No, the flood lasted for 150 days (Genesis 7:24). The rain that caused the flood lasted for forty days and forty nights.

Of course, the biblical story of the flood is an amalgamation of at least two separate stories, so there is certainly room for movement there.

Re:Creationists

[plunge]

How the heck do you "localize" a flood that supposedly covered MOUNTAINS? Gravity requires that the water level equilibrate before it can raise any higher, which means that for water levels to get that high, there's no way to flood one part of the world without flooding the whole thing... unless of course magic forcefields kept the high water levels from simply running off sideways across other continents and seas.

Of course, this being YEC apologism, I've actually heard YECs say, matter of factly, that, well, of course there was no gravity the way we experience it today before the flood! Duh.

Re:Creationists

[plunge]

"Claiming that "Proper Christianity" is based on anything but the Bible seems a bit ridiculous to me--I would argue that proper Christianity is rooted in following the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Christ taught in a oral tradition, as did most of his followers and later apostolic descendants. for decades there was Christianity without any of the texts of the Bible, and for centuries there was no Bible at all: just lots and lots of different opinions and letters and texts circulated around, all copied by hand over and over leaving things in and out, changing words, etc.

Frankly, I think on this one the Catholics have it far more right: plenty of important traditions and teachings existed long before there was any such thing as a Bible, and don't happen to be included in the Bible (since the Bible is not exhaustive: it's just a collection of some of the texts considered most important and reliable against heresy: no one who compiled it ever meant it to be the SOLE reference as to what Christianity was all about, just the most trustworthy and orthodox documents they could gather)

Of course, given that there is no "original" source document that we have for pretty much every Bible document, and many of our source documents have significant differences (including differences on such important things as the Trinity, what Christ's attitude towards death was, the role of women, etc.), talking about there being one and one only true text literally reliable in every word makes no sense at all.

Re:Creationists

[phulegart]

A man looks to the heavens and speaks to the Lord Above.
"God, is it true that a million years to you is but a moment?"
The heavens shudder slightly as a reply is sent down. "YES"
The man ponders for a time, looks to the heavens again and speaks.
"God, is it true that a million dollars to you is but a penny?"
Again, the heavens shudder as "YES" as the Lord Almighty replies in the affirmative.
The man mulls this over, and looks skyward a third time.
"God, can you give me a penny?"
The heavens do not shake and the ground does not shudder as the Lord's booming voice answers.
"IN A MOMENT"

I saw a minivan that belonged to a protestant church in town. It was covered with the name of the church, as well as commands to attend and a slew of religious bumper stickers. Among all the other bumper stickers, there was one claiming that the KJV of the bible is the only true version. I wondered, if advertising is work, would not just the ownership of this vehicle be considered work? Should not I and others from town here, as part of the same community, be killing the owner of this minivan for working on the sabbath? Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. And what if Junior sees dad driving the minivan on the sabbath, what should he do? Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

On a related note. I've been wanting to get some slaves. That's cool with the Bible as per Lev. 25:44: You can also have other male or female slaves. These are the male and female slaves that you buy from the nations around you.

I'd personally like to know how anyone can look at one of these religious texts, claim they are the word of God, then disregard them. "Oh, that's the Old Testament. It doesn't apply with the coming of Christ." Huh? How did the Word of God just become invalid? And if the Word of God became invalid once before, doesn't that mean that it will likely become invalid again? If God is so Wishy-Washy on what he says (there are THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF COMMANDMENTS! http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm ) where is all this faith coming from? He can't even stand by his word between testaments.

I say, the big flightless bird is real. It went extinct with the advent of the wok.

Re:Creationists

[Bastard of Subhumani]

How the heck do you "localize" a flood that supposedly covered MOUNTAINS?

By having the mountains at the bottom of a natural BASIN?

Re:Creationists

[Bastard of Subhumani]

there are THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF COMMANDMENTS

The first set was clearly marked as a beta. We told that to marketing, but did they listen? No, we need to ship it now they said, or the Zoroastrians will beat us to market just like the Jews did. But we do admit it took us too long to get the service pack out.

KSorrys,

    BoS, Dev team lead, Godsoft Inc.

Re:Creationists

[Ginger Unicorn]

perhaps you should look at the website of the new creation museum from answers in genesis. apparently there was a "floating forest". i kid you not. and when the flood was over, as the waters subsided, they broke up the floating forest and redistributed the trees on land.

Where did they get the idea for the floating forest from? I beleive it was Ken Ham's ass.

Re:Creationists

[localman]

I agree almost completely... but I was raised fundamentalist Christian and argued the creationist side of things many times in my teens. Then around 17 or so all the good points by others started adding up and I had doubts. And then I went through an agnostic phase, and finally settled as a happy well adjusted atheist :) My sister followed a similar path on a different timeline. So I'm just saying that discussion with religious types isn't always 100% useless. They'll probably never admit it during the argument but you can plant the seeds for later thinking, and people can sometimes change their mind.

In other words, I believe (perhaps irrationally) that respectful debate is not always just a waste of time.

Cheers.

Re:Creationists

[hateful monkey]

Sorry this is off topic, but this twit just slapped my "kick me, I'm an ASS" button. Thank you for taking this opportunity to put down other religious groups by pointing out that your particular brand of Christianity (let me guess...Catholic?) is both the "proper Apostolic Authority" and the home of "true Authority Christians". Get off your high horse and realize your "ACCURATE translations of the Bible" didn't come together for 200+ years, knocking a few years of of your 1500 year estimate. (I think the Coptic Church may have beaten you on that one and they can trace their age at least as far as the Catholic Church and with far less interference from pagan worshipping Monarchs "helping" them get their act together in Nicea.) I heard a Catholic priest during his homily say that manna from Heaven was a swarm of insects (presumably because the people of Israel were too stupid to know they were eating insects and simply write that instead), is that Official Authorised One True Faith(TM) doctrine or was it some doddering priest talking out of his head? It isn't literal, it's literalistic so that makes it reasonable instead of subjecting you to ridicule for believing something silly. It also denigrates something the Catholic Church has called a miracle for centuries to a happy and slightly disgusting accident. You may have deluded yourself into thinking that your church has taken a logical and reasonable stance in balancing science and scripture, but if you really pin down the doctrine of the Catholic Church they will tell you that thier official view on several Bible "stories" is far more literal than you may want to believe. The OFFICIAL belief of the Catholic Church- the parting of the Red Sea was not a seasonal event that should have been perfectly familiar to everyone involved, Israeli and Egyptian alike. Christ fed 5000 people with a couple fish and a loaf of bread. Christ DIED and 3 days later RESURRECTED, and every time you take communion your are EATING THE BODY OF CHRIST and and DRINKING HIS BLOOD. So the next time you want to point out the absurdity of someone else's beliefs realize that your own sometimes stretches the standard model of reality. Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the mote out of the eye of thy brother. If you don't believe something man up and say you don't believe it, don't bend and twist your religious teachings so don't look like an idiot for believing it. Half of what most Catholics will tell you about their "literalistic" view of the Bible would have gotten them excommunicated and burned 500 years ago.

Re:Creationists

[tompaulco]

I'm a Creationist. I believe it was some kind of giant flightless bird. I don't see any reason to deny the past existence of giant flightless birds given the current existence of giant flightless birds.

Re:Creationists

[Copid]

It should also be noted that we're talking about saltwater. Not so great for most terrestrial plants (or organisms in general).

It's true that terrestrial plants can last quite a long time underwater (depending on the type), but definitely not forever, and definitely not if the water is the wrong salinity. A worldwide flood is guaranteed to send quite a lot of species into extinction.

Re:Creationists

[plunge]

There isn't any basin structure that comes anywhere near qualifying (remember it needs to be all land and then get filled to several THOUSAND feet and THEN drained away back to land again) period, let alone in the area of the mountains in question.

Re:Creationists

[plunge]

The problem is that it isn't just a giant flightless bird: it's also unambiguously a dinosaur in a particular lineage of dinosaurs, and most probably a cousin of the modern flightless birds (moas, ostriches, etc.)

Re:Creationists

[sumdumass]

I don't think the water, if a world wide flood was possible would have any adverse salinity compared to regular water. What makes the ocean salty is that there isn't any outlet for the minerals that have been eroded. This is also why salt lake near salt lake city is salty and possibly the dead sea's level of salt too.

Take a glass of ocean water, pour it into a 5 gallon bucket, now add 3 gallons of tap water too it. You will be able to test and probably taste the dilution of the salt concentrate. I am even going to suggest that 6000 years ago or however long ago the flood supposedly happened, the salinity of the oceans were different then today.

Now, Something we need to consider in addition. In norther climates, salt is used to clear and melt snow and ice from parking lots, roadways, sidewalks and driveways. Every year during the first of the spring you will see spots or bands of dark brown grass along or near these slated surfaces. This is burning caused from over spray or runoff were high concentrations of salt were present in the grass. By mid spring, they green back up and grow about the same as the rest of the lawn. So I'm not sure such a small diluted amount of salt in the water would have the effect your looking for. It might though, I'm just going from experience.

Re:Creationists

[myowntrueself]

Hey, good write-up.

This is about to be way off-topic.

Now can you tell me about the 'rapture'?

Specifically, I am wondering if it will take Catholics as well as Anglicans? Jehovas witnesses? 7th day adventists? And maybe if God would be kind enough to extend it to Mormons as well?

If God would please take the Jews and Muslims away too, the rest of us would be terribly grateful. Is that likely to happen?

I understand that God might want to leave us with the Scientologists though as I am sure Hollywood must be in His plan somewhere.

Re:Creationists

[trolltalk.com]

Its the choice of words ... you said the plants were "designed" that way. That implies a designer - as opposed to plants "evolved" that way, which doesn't.

That's why I said you might want to rethink your orginal choice of words.

Re:Creationists

[Taco Meat]

Here in America, I find more people try to reason around the bible than people of other faiths do with their holy books. For example, does not the bible forbid divorce unless a mate has been unfaithful? it has been said that more americans than ever are religious, and yet the divorce rate in this country is staggering. more people belive in the bible (supposedly) and people regularly flout its precepts.

Re:Creationists

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Did God tell you that?

Twice as tall as a man?

[x_MeRLiN_x]

I've never heard of a human 4 metres tall nor have I seen height being measured from foot to shoulder.

Re:Twice as tall as a man?

[Lachlan Hunt]

It said 8m long, not 8m tall.

Re:Twice as tall as a man?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of a human 4 metres tall nor have I seen height being measured from foot to shoulder.

We must have read different articles. The one I read said that the dinosaur was 4 metres tall, not a man. Also, it is common for animals with a longer flexible neck to be measured to the shoulder. It's how horses are measured, for example.

Congratulations on the "insightful" modifier though.

Re:Twice as tall as a man?

[jfengel]

The height of a horse is measured to the withers, basically its shoulders. I suspect that applies to quadrupeds in general. It's because it's a fairly stable place to measure to, but it's hard to keep a horse steady.

This bird isn't a quadruped, but if it has a long and neck it's more meaningful to measure to the shoulder than the top of its head.

The 8 meters is length, rather than height: tip of its head to the top of its tail, and the height is measured foot to shoulder. (I'm inferring that the thing has a tail. I'd much rather get my science news from Science News than from the BBC.)

Twice the size of a man?

[evilsofa]

So it's twice the size of a man and weighs 3000 pounds?

Re:Twice the size of a man?

[Hal_Porter]

The writeup is bad. The article is something like "Dinosaur be twice the size of yo mama, fat Capitalist Caucasian Running Dog". The scientist studied Communism at Mao Tse Tung University in Beijing and then did a post Doc in Ghetto Insults at a community college in Brooklyn.

Re:Twice the size of a man?

[NotQuiteReal]

3000 lbs is not much more than twice as much as this 1200 lb guy

But, in general, I agree with your shock and horror of picturing a 1500 pound man...

Re:Twice the size of a man?

[jfengel]

Remember the square-cube law. If it's twice as tall, it's got eight times as much volume. Double the height of 200 pound man and you get a 1,600 pound man. That puts us within a factor of two.

The thing must be somewhat rounder than we are. Remember that a horse the size of a man at the shoulder weighs over a ton. If it were shaped like a horse, at "twice the size" of a man it would weigh 16,000 pounds.

Clearly it's shaped somewhere between a human and a horse, and much closer to the human side of things. (Which makes sense, given that it's bipedal.)

Re:Twice the size of a man?

[cammoblammo]

I too am glad that /. doesn't have a webcam facility.

Re:Twice the size of a man?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

What you're aying is totally correct. Nonetheless, the headline was clumsily worded and confusing.

Re:Twice the size of a man?

[jbengt]

Would you say that a gallon is twice the size of a pint?
TFA does indeed say that that the dino is twice the height of man at the shoulder.
But the sumarry says that it's twice the size.
Those aren't the same thing.

And if you look at the picture in the article, it's twice as high, but it carries it's body horizontally and, counting the tail, is 3 or 4 times as long as an average person is tall.

Re:Twice the size of a man?

[jfengel]

Without a doubt. I should have repeated my comment, made in a different post, that I prefer to get my science news from Science News than from the regular media outlets. The BBC is a bit worse than most on that score. Headline (and the rest of the article) were really badly written.

Wark!

[Arakageeta]

Waaaaaark!

So ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is it Jesus-old or Eve-really-old?

BTW, she looks like she just smoked a big ol' rock doesn't she?

that's a very big chicken

[wizardforce]

While some have theorised that meat-eating dinosaurs got smaller as they evolved to be more bird-like, this beast weighed about 1,400kg (3,080lbs). That is about 35 times heavier than other similar feathered dinosaurs. Nature journal reports that the beaked animal was 8m (26ft) long and twice as tall as a man at the shoulder; yet it was only a young adult when it died.

this thing wasn't even done growing either- it was 11 years old when it died and apparently had a lot more growing up to do before it died.

Re:that's a very big chicken

[Anonymous Coward]

Many birds, and their non-avian theropod relatives, grew very fast. Some birds achieve adult size and sexual maturity in mere weeks. Oviraptorosaurs like this one would have been long and truly fully grown at 11 years!

Joust Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have already spent years mastering the control of these beasts!

Re:Joust Anyone?

[Tatisimo]

Let's get cloning these things right away! Not just for joust, think of he Chocobo racing!!!

Re:Joust Anyone?

[bladesjester]

I have to admit that one of the first things I thought was "Pass the barbeque sauce!"

I figure a ton and a half of barbequed dino-chicken should be food enough for a nice party (considering some of the ones we've had where we roasted half a cow). Besides, eating something that would probably want to eat you first is a case of turnabout being fair play in my book.

Imagine the potential!

[edwardpickman]

If birdlike dinosaurs got that big then giant chickens must be possible. Just imagine the MacNuggets!

Re:Imagine the potential!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's going to take a LOT of corn! http://sanityforsale.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/indu strial-waste-in-mcdonalds-chicken-nuggets/


(*sigh* A quick search didn't reveal it as a common "myth." One of my junior high teachers convinced half his students that McNuggets were made from chicken tumors. I was hoping to go that route in stead.)

Re:Imagine the potential!

[Tablizer]

If birdlike dinosaurs got that big then giant chickens must be possible. Just imagine the [size of the] MacNuggets!

Or the people who eat them

Re:Imagine the potential!

[bigsam411]

Just imagine the MacNuggets! You mean iNuggets.

Re:Imagine the potential!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Mac user, I take offense at your reference to "MacNuggets." At least you didn't call them MACnuggets, or make some reference to some mysterious operating system you call "OS/X" -- because that sort of thing would have put me right over the top.

Thank you for time and attention in this matter.

Sincerely,
A Mac User

PS, these dino-bird things were big enough that I'm sure you could've scraped enough gristle and fat out of 'em to make a batch of McNuggets big enough to fill a Volkswagen.

Re:Imagine the potential!

[ozbird]

You're assuming that McNuggets are actually chicken.

Re:Imagine the potential!

[Anonymous Coward]

The WarkNuggets, that'd be.

Re:Imagine the potential!

[aliquis]

Just when you thought american fast food consumers couldn't get any fater this one turns up.

Well, atleast your McNuggets idea explains why the man weights 1500 lbs.

Tastes like chicken!

[throatmonster]

(score -1: really, really f'ing lame)

Terror Birds!!!

[Hal_Porter]

Phorusrhacids (marketed as Terror Birds!!! by the ever highbrow Scientific American) are cooler giant extinct birds. I like the way in the SciAm pictures they have a thoughtful, confident expression too, like they're thinking "I could bite that dude's head clean off. I don't think he knows that"

E.g. see the picture here -

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/08 01_050801_terrorbirds.html

Re:Terror Birds!!!

[localroger]

"I could bite that dude's head clean off. I don't think he knows that"

My parrot, who weighs about 5 pounds soaking wet, has that same expression. It's just a birdism.

Re:Terror Birds!!!

[bar-agent]

Yeah, I remember reading about terror birds many years ago. Here's a nice picture of one going after those tiny horses from back in the day. Note the wing-claws. It was theorized they use them like daggers.

And if one species of terror bird had the speed, that beak, dagger-wings, and the kick in a 10-foot tall package...well...that's one mother-f'n scary bird.

Units

[emm-tee]

It would have been more terrifying if I didn't first have to work out what those ridiculous Imperial units meant...!

Re:Units

[illegalcortex]

Well, dinosaurs existed before the metric switch, after all.

Re:Units

[Anonymous Coward]

That's about 1.3E4 newtons, for those more comfortable with SI.

Eating Chicken

[AugustZephyr]

[Eating_Chicken] Giant bird resembling a chicken walks up to me and stares menacingly.
[/Eating_Chicken]"I hope you two were not related"
[Loud Clucking]
[run]

Hold me

[Joebert]

If birds evolved from dinosaurs, & we're evolving from apes, that means that things must be getting smaller as they evolve.
What if there's a minimum scale somthing can evolve to, sooner or later we're going to be smaller than the birds, again, & I don't think they're going to take too kindly to what we've been doing to their ancestors.

Re:Hold me

[ChronoFish]

You rationalize like a creationist.

For starters humans are larger than most other primates and our fossil record shows a progression in height.

Aside from that, evolution makes no prediction about size. Evolution is not (does not have to be) linear. What is predictable, is that if size matters (either smaller or larger) a population will tend to the beneficial size over time.

-CF

Re:Hold me

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. This theory of evolution doesn't make any sense, so Christianity must be right. Let's all pray to God and ask for forgiveness.

Re:Hold me

[Joebert]

I think I figured it out, Slashdot gives people with a sense of humor modpoints during the week, & everyone else modpoints on the weekend. :)

Even more evidence that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more evidence that Nazis rode dinosaurs!

Xing Xu

[BamZyth]

I am too lazy to find hard references, but Xing Xu, the researcher who found
this fossil was once involed in the discovery of another "dinosaur bird" which
was shown as a fraud. To his credit, he was also involved in the team that discovered
the fraud (isn't it strange?)

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/19 50967.htm

FTFA : In 2001 he was embroiled in controversy over the discovery of a fossil believed to be the 'missing link between dinosaurs and birds, which tests revealed to be a clever fraud.

Re:Xing Xu

[BamZyth]

Ok, he was victim of an elaborate plot. I do not want in any case to cast any doubt on this great scientific who identified around 20 new species of dinosaurs. And google did nothing wrong when they gave my info to the chinese, and I am going to jail without claiming 200$. goodbye.

Re:Xing Xu

[Tablizer]

once involed in the discovery of another "dinosaur bird" which
was shown as a fraud.

It was the "Made in China" label that gave it away :-)

More importantly...

[Anonymous Coward]

These may be the mortal remains of cmdrtaco. Scientists, I call on you give us a conclusive answer.

It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[EaglemanBSA]

Well, it's pretty simple, actually. I believe in some way, shape or form, God created the thing. Maybe He made it evolve, maybe He made it appear out of thin air...essentially I don't know, and don't need to. Creationism and science aren't necessarily exclusive. I simply believe that the scientific reasons behind what happens exist at the behest of a supreme being.

Re:It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[Cheezymadman]

So you're basically saying "I don't care how it happened, all I know is that God made it do whatever it did." Am I about right?

Re:It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[catbutt]

I simply believe that ... Based on....?

Re:It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on what his parents and the church beat into him from childhood. Not that their fairy tales are of any consequence in the real world (apart from holy wars and anti-gay violence).

Re:It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on....?

Based on the natural human tendency to try to explain things they don't understand. Some of us assume the existence of supernatural entities; others have this crazy idea that everything began with a random explosion which totally randomly happened to lead to the existence of lawyers and sitcoms. Ultimately it all boils down to belief - either you choose to believe in a creator whose existence cannot be explained, or you choose to believe in a big bang whose existence cannot be explained.

What I want to know is, why are the atheists so keen to force their beliefs on other people? I can understand the proselytising of religions, even if I find it rather unpleasant, because they at least believe they're saving souls or whatever. But what benefit do atheists think they're causing by constantly attacking other people's cherished beliefs?

Re:It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[onedotzero]

I think active athiests see how much damage is done by religion. I would like to suggest you watch The Root of All Evil by Richard Dawkins.

Although somewhat terse and often rude[1] the documentary highlights some serious problems with accepting religion and giving it the respect that it sees as being an inherent right.

[1] Not necessarily a bad thing - this is Richard Dawkins through and through :)

Re:It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so supreme if you see the state of the world we live in.

Re:It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[Ginger Unicorn]

i think its a problem over definition of terms - in the context of evolution denial people generally use the term creationists to denote people that ignore or rationalise away the scientific evidence for evolution in order to accomodate their belief in the book of genesis. obviously you dont fit that criteria, so the term is a bit overloaded. i prefer evolution denier. it fits better with the other types like holocaust denier, HIV denier, and what it looks like is becoming the case of global warming deniers. People who just cherry pick and rationalise evidence to fit their own preconceived notions, and generally employ some kind of conspiracy theory to explain why the majority opinion is against them.

Re:It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[EaglemanBSA]

Based on some factual history and some faith.

Re:It's pretty simple (I'm a Creationist myself)

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the state of the world we live in isn't as much a direct function of the supremacy of God, but of our own actions as people, and a lack of interference on God's part.

I, for one

[vivin]

I, for one, welcome our 3000 lb, twice-as-tall-as-a-man, giant dinosaur bird overlords.

Groot, baie groot

[flyingfsck]

Drie duisend pond is 'n blerrie groot voe"l...

No Slashdoter Can Answer this Question: QUIS SCIT?

[Anonymous Coward]

What was Oregon Trail written in?

Signed,
Grumpus Maximus

SOMEBODY HELP!!! DO NOT MOD THIS DOWN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Date/Time: 2007-06-15 22:36:18.319 -0400
OS Version: 10.4.9 (Build 8P2137)
Report Version: 4

Command: QuickTime Player
Path: /Applications/QuickTime Player.app/Contents/MacOS/QuickTime Player
Parent: WindowServer [65]

Version: 7.1.6 (7.1.6)
Build Version: 5
Project Name: QuickTime
Source Version: 4932000

PID: 1263
Thread: 9

Exception: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (0x0001)
Codes: KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE (0x0002) at 0x00000009

Thread 0:
0 libSystem.B.dylib 0x9004d727 semaphore_signal_thread_trap + 7
1 ...ple.CoreServices.CarbonCore 0x90cdfe9f TSSignalSemaphore + 93
2 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e1206d IssueReadSchedulerRequest + 102
3 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e11787 RSRequest + 125
4 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e102b5 SDH_ScheduleData64 + 462
5 ...ple.CoreServices.CarbonCore 0x90ccec5f CallComponentFunctionCommon + 957
6 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e0d8da SDH_ComponentDispatch + 189
7 ...ple.CoreServices.CarbonCore 0x90cce788 CallComponentDispatch + 34
8 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x9998424f DataHScheduleData64 + 73
9 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e6b032 STMediaCCGetChunkDataH + 585
10 ...ple.CoreServices.CarbonCore 0x90ccec5f CallComponentFunctionCommon + 957
11 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e55be5 STMediaComponentDispatch + 125
12 ...ple.CoreServices.CarbonCore 0x90cce788 CallComponentDispatch + 34
13 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x9997e3d2 MediaCCGetChunkDataH + 61
14 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e30b2f loadTheChunk + 711
15 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e34cdf addNewSchedule + 1485
16 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e3584d LoadAFrame + 261
17 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e3adb5 v2m_doWhatTheMentorTellsUs + 1949
18 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e3c870 Video2MoviesTask + 2943
19 ...ple.CoreServices.CarbonCore 0x90ccec5f CallComponentFunctionCommon + 957
20 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98e2b7d8 Video2ComponentDispatch + 210
21 ...ple.CoreServices.CarbonCore 0x90cce788 CallComponentDispatch + 34
22 com.apple.QuickTime 0x94373455 MediaMoviesTask + 61
23 com.apple.QuickTime 0x94372149 TaskMovie_priv + 4552
24 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98edfd86 doIdleMovie + 145
25 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98eee8d5 internalDoAction + 3896
26 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98edfc5e _MCIdle + 41
27 ...ple.CoreServices.CarbonCore 0x90cceaa3 CallComponentFunctionCommon + 513
28 ...ickTimeComponents.component 0x98edb15d _MCComponentDispatch + 118
29 ...ple.CoreServices.CarbonCore 0x90cce788 CallComponentDispatch + 34
30 com.ap

SOMEONE'S gotta say it!

[SadGeekHermit]

That, gentlemen, is a great big cock.

What?

It's basically a big rooster, right?

What's that look for?

With that kind of weight, it

[El Gruga]

probably needed two Pratt and Whitney JT9D's to get it to fly. I believe this was the first wide-bodied chicken and was put into service by various airlines in China. When it crashed, there was always enough food until rescuers arrived.....

Re:With that kind of weight, it

[MichaelSmith]

When it crashed, there was always enough food until rescuers arrived.....

Mmmm.... lemon chicken

3000 lbs./Twice the size of a man

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a lot of Big Macs to make a man 1500 lbs.

Not Joust, Final Fantasy

[Junior J. Junior III]

This thing cannot fly; it can only run. It is the Chocobo.

Re:Not Joust, Final Fantasy

[bladesjester]

In Joust, you were riding an ostrich as player one or an emu as player two and neither of those fly, so I think he's alright.

Creationism is RIGHT!

[dduardo]

By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work. But like anyone after much work, He was hungry; so at that moment He said: "Wait, one more thing...Let there be a KFC!" And with those words a giant dinosaur bird appeared, battered in the Colonel's secret recipe and deep fried. He took one bite of it and said: "Mmmm, tastes just like chicken."

Re:Creationism is RIGHT!

[IHateEverybody]

From the article:

"It belongs to a very unusual group of theropod dinosaurs, which are normally meat-eaters. But this one doesn't have any teeth, so what it ate is a mystery," commented Dr Paul Barrett, a dinosaur researcher from the Natural History Museum in London, UK.

Oh my god! The creationists are right. Dinosaurs were vegetarians.

Why beaks?

[Tablizer]

What is not clear to me is why so many bird-like dino's evolved beaks, even (so far) indepedently of each other in some cases. Other than pecking into trees, which was probably a niche of only a few, I don't see what advantage beaks have over teethed jaws. If a beak cracks off, it is harder to grow back than teeth.

Another little mystery is why snails survive. Their method of locamotion seems rather expensive and slow compared to legs. Being able to pull into a shell helps, but what about slugs? The insects should have wiped their niche out long ago.

Re:Why beaks?

[MichaelSmith]

I don't see what advantage beaks have over teethed jaws.

Well, it is less complex. Probably less mass. Better overall for a lightweight animal.

Another little mystery is why snails survive

Perhaps by being barely alive in the first place. Less energy needed to stay alive.

Thats enough mysteries solved for today.

Re:Why beaks?

[fimbulvetr]

Seed extraction.

Read more about darwin's finches and how they had selective pressures to get better at seed extraction, both to overcome selective pressures of competition, but also about fruits developing more elaborate protection membranes. Depending on circumstances, beaks can and do vary in size over a matter of decades, depending on which fruits are available (i.e. more/less rain that year, new fruit from nearby island, etc).

Digging for seeds and pecking a tree might seem to be about the same thing, but they hardly are. Seeds are a vital supply of many creatures' vital nutrients. It might also seem trivial for us to extract seeds from an apple using our fingers and a teethed jaw. Now imagine it with just your teethed jaw and no fingers - suddenly beaks become a pretty darn good idea - especially when considering the seed is also hard to open, since it's developed a tough membrane due to its own selective pressures.

There are numerous articles and books detailing what we (think) we know about these finches, it'd be unfair for me to attempt a summary here, especially considering this is well outside my expertise.

Re:Why beaks?

[plunge]

The ancestors of slugs didn't have legs, and you can't just evolve something because it would be cool or even useful: you're stuck with the options you can get given your existing form and whatever might be likely to crop up via mutation. Slugs and snails, however, both do incredibly well in their niche, without legs. They have all sorts of other adaptations instead.

Re:Why beaks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as being small and yucky.

Re:Why beaks?

[tompaulco]

Why would a fruit want to defend itself against birds. I thought that birds were one of the primary distribution methods for seeds?

Re:Why beaks?

[Tablizer]

Perhaps by being barely alive in the first place. Less energy needed to stay alive.

Legs don't necessarily require more power than slime-a-motion.

Re:Why beaks?

[aliquis]

But only unless they are broken and digested, that's why.

Chocobo

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else see "giant dinosuar bird" and immediately think chocobo?
Maybe it's just me.

I am thinking....

[Anonymous Coward]

...some killer drumsticks that would be a hit at any SCA wingding, and family sized omelets! A *big* family!

Twice as *long* as a man?

[Blighten]

It said 8m long, not 8m tall.

Some men are longer than others....I guess

Re:Twice as *long* as a man?

[the_tsi]

Agh! Yer mother been tellin' stories about me, then?

What the hell

[aztektum]

This story has been posted for long enough. Where's the "I bow before our new feathered overlords?" Or how about "I'm allergic to down, you insensitive clod!"

Man /. really *is* getting less worth my time!

And it flew?

[rdmiller3]

It's twice the size of a man but weighs 3000 pounds (about twenty times what a man weighs)...
and it flew??

Re:And it flew?

[rts008]

"...and it flew??"

At least read the summary, I know it's bad form on /. to RTFA, but not even the summary???

Or is it the fact 'flightless'(from the summary) has too many syllables for you to grasp?

I would ask if you were new here, but I see your UID says otherwise...you should know better by now if you aren't brain dead.

If you feel your 5 digit UID elevates you past such concerns, then do the rest of us a favor and just lurk.

Re:And it flew?

[BungaDunga]

"Chinese researchers uncovered the fossilised remains of the flightless giant"
I know nobody reads TFA, but not reading the summary is surely a new low.

Re:And it flew?

[MichaelSmith]

It's twice the size of a man but weighs 3000 pounds (about twenty times what a man weighs)... and it flew??

But with a high wing loading (and stall speed). Maybe it was a giant hummingbird.

Mourn

[weinrich]

I for one mourn the loss of our Gigantoraptor overlords. May we always be rulled by beings as humble and powerful as the Gigantoraptor.

phew!

[nanosquid]

over 3000 lbs. From the article: 'Chinese researchers uncovered the fossilised remains of the flightless giant

That's a relief.

Re:phew!

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Indeed, imagine if that crapped on your car.

Obligatory

[DavidD_CA]

I, for one, welcome our giant bird dinosaur overlo--- oh, wait, just the fossils? Nevermind then.

00100010

[Taco Meat]

This will be discredited when you Americans learn that Brahma and Vishnu did the nasty and out came the world. Since Brahma has a super long pecker, though, he harmed vishnu in the process and caused some rectal bleeding, and when that coagulated the dinosaurs were born. Then vishnu and brahma called up Saraswati and had a threesome. Since that's not her thing, she refused to come but later hooked up with some indian chick named Breena. That's how the birdlike dinosaurs came about. See, it's really quite simple.

And, dude, what's up with your website? Decrypt this, using subject:

zzzzz ajinh dxpjl ugean kbast xlnqw tdvqh sdogn vmktf mtolo xtngi
tumvj eugnh rfwfq mhejt gcqtd kartp logpb foiwf arvkl roivo eofhb
auhuw roevo dwweu fqbdb nnoqa xthqv cwfrw orqwi cihqi mqnlp dmtki
beoij hmeoo ognkq ilkua pwwom hfard kabsc glfns txknj uwncq pkbea
oparo ibxwe qdusv bejke xiqbf wupxx mnfgt veltl dkjbp ahpmi alvjv
baumh duxwc mckbr iuobx wurem srooe mxwps tvhdh lftgk jllbc odnhq
jcbuf toqnp isksg mdori pvcep guare bdfrr lmune bqkpi eifgs aeihf
avpli dsvdq flidv aaawd gfkxf qfvxs owmgq mhnuj inbep ujqph pxsoi
rxdag cgrkn krqmq cutxu mvjeu bbnnr rjtha iheau bbojw obcxk brfcb
bevte kbndd jtfcw jkxvc itvbw ceqqo lbdid ggokr demvj mnnxb oendf
fngmm mhvtc xwcfg slqfv nfeig soeij tmhlw ifkhw sxpit vshfg amsos
liejl scapk qvsxd tfnkl nomkh cpohn kobhp olwbs wpvqf lrvin bvqrh
madqi vomde mgcnw baaui mkgdt ikisl pugav egagg hbkqg dgqll pfqgg
fexqj ufbhs gaapc lxvqi ttqma acpcx vuhua pemhg hspmj wekwd rshbs
hovwe vaiqm nerlu ddocx dgevl bkijb dtext rcftj ltobv vrtdb ktidl
muojs axppc tkzzz yyyyy

Gtupid sook.

Re:00100010

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the operator? It's not XOR.

China fossils not all Bunk

[Magdalene]

Not all fossils out of China are hoaxes, and I have yet to see one scientific site discredit this find. So for now the fossil stands:
Gigantoraptor:
flightless birdlike dinosaur
feathers (some paleontologists theorize feathers first provided an evolutionary bonus for their insulation value)
young adult
3,080lbs
26ft long
10 - 12ft tall
11 years old
evolutionary side branch from birds.

Science has no truths, ideally, science can only disprove hypothesis and theorem, so until someone disproves this find, it stands as the current science of palaeontology.

Re:China fossils not all Bunk

[earlymon]

A local newpaper in Taiwan is reporting that Xing Xu spent a year validating the claim before this public announcement, and did mention the fact that - as noted above - he had incorrectly validated a fossil and later was part of the team to discredit the finding, due to the fact the fossil in question was an amalgam of set in modern grout.

hth

New Record!

[ChromeAeonium]

This story was posted at 9:35. This comment was posted at 9:39. Thats a whole four minutes on a story about dinosaurs, ect., without someone trying to be funny by making a lame creationist joke. Yep, didn't see that coming. Seriously, could someone please tell me so many people on /. feel so threatened by creationism that they feel the need to make bad jokes about it every other story? You'd swear that half the people here are closet creationists who are trying to deny it by doing this stuff.

Re:New Record!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because there is no middle ground in... The War on Science!!!

(shock! horror! images of helicopters, fiery explosions and sweaty US Marines dashing to and fro!)

Re:New Record!

[fucksl4shd0t]

s/threatened/annoyed and your question answers itself.

The current theory is

[ChromeAeonium]

Back in the day, cavemen would breed these things. They'd take two of them, and have them mate. Then they'd take a select male and a select female offspring mate them. Then they'd pick out a male and female pair from that litter and mate those! Then, maybe they'd do it one more time. The result was a bird so fucked up, it couldn't walk, let alone run. Then they'd race them.

Giant chocobo

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the bugger is, just a giant chocobo.
Compare yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FFX_Chocobo.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/s ci_nat_enl_1181757285/html/1.stm

Don't you mean MaxNuggets?

[Anonymous Coward]

much bigger than the mcnuggests of today...

Ohmygod!

[haraldm]

Fancy how big the first algae and bacteria must have been!

Re:Ohmygod!

[Joebert]

Specially the ones from the stars that dwarf our solar systems sun.

Re:Ohmygod!

[haraldm]

VY Canis Majoris bacteria. Wow. ;-)

umm..

[sharperguy]

I though it was only a dinosaur if it couldn't fly.

Otherwise its just a large flying reptile existing in the same period as dinosaurs right?

Leg size vs weight?

[White Flame]

Okay, we've all seen the pics of the T Rex with thighs that look like a speed skater's, and being told that at that scale, it wouldn't be able to hold itself up. Now we have a dino-chicken in similar scale with those little spindly things? I think not.

Big Bird

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you say, "Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?" in Mandarin Chinese?

You're right!

[Howzer]

You're absolutely right. But dinosaurs also existed before Imperial units, so according to your logic the story should have read:

...a Dinosaur bird twice the size of Ugg when he stands on that big, mossy stone just near the creek, and weighing in at about five times as much as that mammoth leg we hacked off that really big bull mammoth we killed last winter and dragged back to the cave, remember?

Happy now?

Then again, you do know that dinosaurs existed way before humans, and therefore any measurement system, right?

I know! Let's just use SI units and get over ourselves, eh? Whadda ya say?!

Next...

[gemada]

they will tell us they have found the fossilized remains of a Snufalufagus!

Math?

[Orig_Club_Soda]

3000 lbs is more than twice the size of man.

Slugs

[Bowling Moses]

"Another little mystery is why snails survive. Their method of locamotion seems rather expensive and slow compared to legs. Being able to pull into a shell helps, but what about slugs? The insects should have wiped their niche out long ago."

I was out hunting in Oregon's coast range once and came across a fresh coyote poop. Clearly visible (I ain't poking around in poop, especially one this nasty!) was the remains of a slug. Other than being bitten in half it had gone through the entire digestive tract without visible damage. Slugs are really nasty and hardly anything will eat them. That poor coyote won't try it again either--with as slimy as the things are it probably was tasting the slug for a week.

Also in Oregon the slugs can reach lengths of up to 9 inches, maybe more, so there's a whole lot of predators that just look at them and try not to barf.

I want a bucket of...

[glaserud]

...Kentucky fried Gigantoraptor.

Who knows...

[aliquis]

... maybe in 200 million years they will find Jesus, stoned, in the mud.

> w
> w
> w
> n
You Travel west
You Travel west into the ... sea.
You Travel west into the split sea omg wtf...

He'll be a fake aswell thought ;D

Chocobo!!

[bartmank11]

Chocobo!!

Why mankind died out.

[Einstein's Bees]

As I predicted:

  "When all the disgusting ugly giant flying reptiles disappear from the face of the Earth, Mankind will have only four years left".