Slashdot Mirror


Dinosaur Auction In Las Vegas

Xerfas writes "If you ever dreamed of owning your own dinosaur, here's your chance. Possibly the most impressive natural history auction ever is set to take place Oct. 3 at the Venetian Casino in Las Vegas. Here you can find everything from the T.rex to a duck-billed dinosaur and a mammoth skeleton."

82 comments

  1. Beats ponies by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cool. I can just imagine the kids yelling "Daddy, I wanna T-Rex!" :-)

    1. Re:Beats ponies by PinkyDead · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tag this OMGVelociraptors!

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  2. Still waiting... by ThoughtMonster · · Score: 0

    I'm still waiting to get my own Barney costume. Cheaper and more controversial.

  3. Trolls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA:

    Fifty-one million years after the dinosaurs became extinct, Carcharocles megalodon trolled the Earthâ(TM)s seas as an apex predator

    Great, as if trolls on Slashdot weren't enough...

    1. Re:Trolls... by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      I really want a troll fossil better than a T. Rex or a mammoth...

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    2. Re:Trolls... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Great, as if trolls on Slashdot weren't enough...

      No kidding! Our trolls are bottom-dwelling parasites at best -- these were apex predators! When you bit a troll, the troll bit back.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  4. Is our economy so bad... by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..that a lot of these items are going to disappear into the hands of private collectors instead of the museums who should have them? It's sad to think of finds of this caliber not being publicly available. Maybe it's time we energize a little more funding into the arts and history.

    1. Re:Is our economy so bad... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      They're not profitable, so it's not likely it will happen, sadly.

    2. Re:Is our economy so bad... by gijoel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real tragedy is that most of these fossils probably came from private digs. Like archeology, paleontology relies on context. The location where it was found, it's position in the geological strata, other fossils found with it. All these factors can enrich our understanding of these species.

      All that information has been lost forever now. Just so some sad sack can own a little piece of eternity.

    3. Re:Is our economy so bad... by Whorhay · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I was a kid a golf course near where I lived was doing some digging as part of renovating their course. They discovered what has since been known as the Burning Tree Mastadon. The lead archaeologist Paul E. Hooge ended up being expelled from many of the professional organizations he was a member of, because he helped the owner find a buyer. This was an amazing find and no museums were interested in giving anything like a fair value for it. It was eventually sold for $600,000 to someone in Japan.

    4. Re:Is our economy so bad... by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Things like the T.Rex tend to end up in museums anyway... I expect eventually someone will donate it or leave it in their will to a museum.

      Good opportunity for someone like Bill Gates to do a bit of high profile philanthropy though.

    5. Re:Is our economy so bad... by Quothz · · Score: 3, Informative

      The real tragedy is that most of these fossils probably came from private digs. Like archeology, paleontology relies on context. The location where it was found, it's position in the geological strata, other fossils found with it. All these factors can enrich our understanding of these species.

      Alan Detrich pulled 'em out of the ground. I can't imagine why you'd worry just because he's a lunatic. He fancies himself a sculptor, he's a staunch proponent of intelligent design who ran for the Kansas Board of Education and famously called those who oppose him "evil-lutionists", and he owns a private fossil excavation company. I can't for the life of me see any reason to be concerned.

    6. Re:Is our economy so bad... by Quothz · · Score: 1

      Alan Detrich pulled 'em out of the ground.

      Correction: He dug up a couple-few of 'em, including the Tyrannosaur, but not all.

    7. Re:Is our economy so bad... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1, Funny

      You filthy communist!!! By what right, by what right, should anyone have to give up their God given birthright to own in perpetuity not only the physical manifestations of , but also the copyrights on any images of, the few known fossils of extinct species of general and scientific interest!? What right to the people have to the bones of dinosaurs lying under my land, just because I happen to live in their national state and am protected by the laws and statues which it passes?!

      Is it just that I be denied the right to auction and sell these priceless anthropological treasures to wealthy, cloistered individuals who will hoard them in secret for eternity? What kind of country do we live in if the profits and pleasures of the few can be superseded by the benefit, progress and interests of the many? A Communist country, That's What!!!

      I found these bones by chance on my own property. Or at least, these bones were found on property belonging to me. Do you know what that means? It means that God has chosen me, and blessed me with this bountiful roll of the dice that I may enjoy it. And His Will trumps the wants of the People. If He wanted the bones to be in a museum, He would have had them found on Government property on on some altruist hippy's plot.

      If it was found on their property then Folks have a RIGHT to do whatever they want with the their country's natural heritage, without restriction or regulation!! It's in the CONSTITUTION!!! If the Founding Father's had wanted there to be things that people shouldn't exclusively own, then they would have explicitly said so. They didn't, because they were great men, who recognised the benefit of cultured men being able to hang ancient lizard bones in their private study, instead of forfeiting them for the masses to paw!!

      I just thank God everyday that this isn't Europe!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:Is our economy so bad... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      In the interest of artifact preservation and the likes, a private collector has been shown to take better care of their items than a museum. You can

      A) Have an item put on a mantle piece and only ever touched by the cleaning ladies duster every week
      or
      B) Have it in front of the public, where its exposed to any number of incidents, and coincidentally gets moved around alot with shifting displays and such at the museum.

      In the sense that a private collector with either Donate it to the museum later in their life or their great grandchildren will or his family line will die off and it'll be collected by the state anyways, I'd rather it be kept in its pristine condition.

    9. Re:Is our economy so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "This was an amazing find and no museums were interested in giving anything like a fair value for it. It was eventually sold for $600,000 to someone in Japan."

      $600000 is probably as much or more than the entire annual acquisition budget for most museums, other than the very largest ones. Even if the museum had that kind of money they would still have to make the case to spend all of it on one specimen that year (or multiple years). It's not that museums are unwilling to pay for acquisitions, but A) the prices of fossils have been driven up *enormously* in the last couple of decades by increasingly pricey private purchases; B) usually a private donor can get a big, fat tax credit if they do make a donation for free, so it's not like they get "nothing"; and C) even if acquired, big specimens like these often take a lot of renovation of the museum (i.e. more $$$) in order to make space for them to go on display, assuming you have any space left in the building that could be devoted to it (and if you aren't going to publicly display a specimen like this after spending that kind of money, it misses half the point of getting it).

      I'm sure plenty of museums were interested, but there are practical issues to consider too, unfortunately.

    10. Re:Is our economy so bad... by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just so some sad sack can own a little piece of eternity.

      eternity, hell. I'm covering that trex in papier mache and glitter, filling it with hookers and blow, and making the world's most kickass birthday pinata.

    11. Re:Is our economy so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no. They never mount the actual bones anymore. My question is does the Samson mount come with the actual bones. The article doesn't even mention fiberglass replica. It may be the only copy but I'm guessing the actual bones are on a shelf somewhere. Usually for that price you'd get the rights to the bones but it may just be the copy.

    12. Re:Is our economy so bad... by sponga · · Score: 1

      I dunno, maybe it might not be a bad thing.

      On my summer trip to Washington D.C. and many of the museums like the Natural History, I noticed most of the pieces were donated by very rich people or they had huge galleries that were donated by them.

      I think most of them started off in private collectors hands and when they die they will donate them to remember their names.

      You can only get so old and rich that there comes a point where you want to be remembered and money can't buy it.

    13. Re:Is our economy so bad... by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      http://www.spearofjesus.com/

      Thanks for the heads up, Quothz.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    14. Re:Is our economy so bad... by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Holy crap!

      I was about to make a joke about a creationist "museum" buying the T.Rex so they could display it with Jesus riding it, but I see this whacko has beat me to it and is making sculptures in a similar vein. Try clicking on that first image and you'll get to Jesus + Dino bones!

      Gotta wonder why a nutter like that is interested in excavating a T.Rex, or more to the point why anyone would let him!

    15. Re:Is our economy so bad... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't forget to make some air holes (he says from bitter personal experience).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Is our economy so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mods seem to have no sense of sarcasm...

  5. Don't be Fooled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Don't be fooled. These dinosaur bones were put there by the Devil, so that people will doubt the Hebraic Creation Myth and might believe in evolution or the Egyptian, Greek or Vedic creation myths. Only believe what you read, not what you see.

    1. Re:Don't be Fooled by vlm · · Score: 1

      Only believe what you read, not what you see.

      Dangerous thought citizen... you meant to say "... Only believe what we tell you is OK to read..."

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  6. Fundamental question - who owns fossils by fprintf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This comes down to a fundamental question of who owns fossils, or any natural resources for that matter. I just wonder if 50 or 100 years from now, after someone has long paid for these at auction, that society/courts/prior landowners/native peoples/you-name-an-interest-group will sue for the return of these "stolen" artifacts.

    We see this happen with art and antiquities all the time. Those things taken from their original home, either in time of war or time of peace are destined to be fought over years later. So how long will it be before society changes and it seems reasonable that one interest group gets enough support and whomever purchases the fossils will be forced to give them back, perhaps even without getting their money back.

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
  7. Surprisingly low prices by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Other than the TRex, the prices were not all that bad. Sure, out of my price range. But $500k for a triceratops (I know its something else) seems pretty good.

    1. Re:Surprisingly low prices by Quothz · · Score: 1

      Other than the TRex, the prices were not all that bad. Sure, out of my price range. But $500k for a triceratops (I know its something else) seems pretty good.

      Funny, that; I felt the same way except it was the shark jaws that I felt seemed over the top. Tyrannosaur bones're the highest-valued dino bones in general - even a single tooth can be pricey. Giant, prehistoric shark jaws are neat, but not all that different from today's sharks, plus they aren't actually, y'know... dinosaurs. Carcharocles teeth aren't terribly rare, either - you can buy one for fifty bucks or so. If the jaws had some of the original teeth, the price'd be a little more reasonable, but those were "close enough" teeth purchased later.

    2. Re:Surprisingly low prices by travdaddy · · Score: 1

      I bet some rich guy buys one of them as a chew toy for his dog.

      --
      Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
    3. Re:Surprisingly low prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be suprised if just about all of the items go for double the estimates. Even though these are tough times, the only rich people who got hit hard cash wise (not counting stocks) were the Bernie Madoff victims.

    4. Re:Surprisingly low prices by Main+Gauche · · Score: 1

      I agree, those prices look low to my layperson eyes. Let's see what they actually go for.

      By the way, it's actually a pair of triceratops(-like) for half a million. Team up with a friend!

  8. Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    Fifty-one million years after the dinosaurs became extinct, Carcharocles megalodon trolled the Earth's seas as an apex predator

    Great, as if trolls on Slashdot weren't enough...

    Yeah, that's just plain bad editing. I'm pretty sure the word they were looking for is trawled which is a homophone as it is pronounced the same as "troll." Having done a lot of fishing in my youth this is a common mistake and I actually thought that internet 'trolling' was called that because it's like fishing for a response in the open waters of the internet. I know that's not the case but it seems a more appropriate origin than some fantasy description of a grotesque creature.

    Oh well, I've never read Wired for their editing. Heck with their layout and ads I don't read them much more at all. I suppose that's just personal preference though.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Yeah, that's just plain bad editing. I'm pretty sure the word they were looking for is trawled which is a homophone as it is pronounced the same as "troll." Having done a lot of fishing in my youth this is a common mistake and I actually thought that internet 'trolling' was called that because it's like fishing for a response in the open waters of the internet. I know that's not the case but it seems a more appropriate origin than some fantasy description of a grotesque creature."

      You are aware that "trolling" and "trawling" are both methods of fishing, distinct from one another? The internet usage has it's roots in the 1st word.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

      In Virginia we say "Trawl" kinda like "Yal", if that makes sense. That said, our state and it's western brother are known for doing a lot of things they shouldn't.

    3. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by Quothz · · Score: 1

      Having done a lot of fishing in my youth this is a common mistake and I actually thought that internet 'trolling' was called that because it's like fishing for a response in the open waters of the internet. I know that's not the case but it seems a more appropriate origin than some fantasy description of a grotesque creature.

      Hm? That's exactly what trolling on the 'net means - "trolling for newbies", as in fishing. Linky.

    4. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trolling is a method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or bait fish, are drawn through the water. This may be behind a moving boat, or by slowly winding the line in when fishing from a static position, or even sweeping the line from side-to-side, eg when fishing from a jetty. Trolling is used to catch pelagic fish such as salmon, mackerel and kingfish.

      Trolling can be phonetically confused with trawling, a completely different method of fishing, where a net (trawl) is drawn through the water instead of lines. Trolling is used both for recreational and commercial fishing whereas trawling is used mainly for commercial fishing.

      From Wikipedia

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought net trolls were call that because they put out bait (offensive or incendiary post) and wait like a troll under a bridge for unsuspecting passers-by.

    6. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. Nearly every single thing you said in this post is wrong.

    7. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by GundamFan · · Score: 1
      While we are quoting Wikipedia:

      The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have first appeared on the internet in the late 1980s,[3] but the earliest known example is from 1991.[4] It is thought to be a truncation of the phrase trolling for suckers, itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging a bait through water, known as trolling. The word also evokes the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales as they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The verb "troll" originates from Old French "troller", a hunting term. The noun "troll", however, is an unrelated Old Norse word for a giant.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    8. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      FYI "trolling" and "trawling" are pronounced differently here in Austrlia. The "o" in "trolling" is the same as the "o" in "patrolling"; in "trawling" the "au" is the same as in "hauling/falling and calling". Mind you, whenever I've heard someone say they are "trawling the internet" I've always understood it to mean seeking information (in the same sense as prawl trawlers trawl for prawns). Maybe I should get out it the troll community more.

    9. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      OK - "Austrlia" is a locally accepted variation of "Australia". A "prawl trawler" is a highly specialised type of "prawn trawler". This is what happens when work pressures impede on my slashdot time.

    10. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by wisty · · Score: 1

      I think the etymology is a little unclear. A troll is a nasty forum denizen, but trolling is probably derived from "trawling for noobs". I guess they sort of merged.

    11. Re:Pedantic Note: Troll Vs Trawl by Quothz · · Score: 1

      I think the etymology is a little unclear. A troll is a nasty forum denizen, but trolling is probably derived from "trawling for noobs".

      Ha! Well played. You almost got me, but it is first thing in the morning.

  9. Yawn by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wake me up when I can buy a prehistoric shark with a frikkin' slingshot.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  10. Awww, man! by R2.0 · · Score: 1

    Not alive? And I was going to try to win "Best Dad Ever!" over the guy who built the canon.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  11. Where does the money go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of this crap was dug up using federal and state eductation and research grants ect...

    And now its being sold out to private ownership?

    Are we getting hosed? again?

  12. IT Dept by Smivs · · Score: 1, Funny

    I understand one of the least interesting lots is a Corporate IT dept complete with a well preserved version of I.E.6

    (Please feel free to mod down as 'Troll')

    1. Re:IT Dept by houghi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Netscape 1.0 is of more interest.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:IT Dept by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Modding rule No. 6: If you offer for people to mod you down, you will be modded up. If you begin your comment with "Mod me flamebait / troll / redundant, but..." you'll be modded +5.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:IT Dept by Maquis196 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thats nothing, sometimes you can just ask for a +5 mod.

      How about it mods? +5 informative?

      --Maquis196

    4. Re:IT Dept by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can also ask for this: MOD PARENT DOWN!

  13. But who is selling? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I cannot figure out who is selling these things. Was it a private collector, professional fossil collectors, or did some museum go bust? I suppose that the auction house is not obligated to identify the seller, but it would interesting to know.

    --
    The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    1. Re:But who is selling? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Informative

      You need to read each item description.

      An auction house is running it, and as far as I can tell, each item comes from somewhere different - the T. Rex is from Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, the Shark Jaws from Vito Bertucci, etc.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    2. Re:But who is selling? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 4, Informative

      They come from different places. The description of the duck bill dinosaur (hadrosaur) says it had been owned by a Japanese museum which closed, and was then bought by a private American collector who is now selling it.

      There's another article here about the auction which mentions the T.Rex also currently being privately owned:

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32705922/ns/technology_and_science-science/

      Sign of the recession I guess that some fat cat has to sell his T.Rex.

    3. Re:But who is selling? by Quothz · · Score: 1

      I cannot figure out who is selling these things.

      The Detrich Fossil Company. It's a Kansas-based company that excavates and resells dino fossils owned by Alan Detrich. He owns Samson and the Kansas Kingfish, at least - I'm only assuming the others belong to him.

  14. The Land Owner of the Excavation Site by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This comes down to a fundamental question of who owns fossils, or any natural resources for that matter. I just wonder if 50 or 100 years from now, after someone has long paid for these at auction, that society/courts/prior landowners/native peoples/you-name-an-interest-group will sue for the return of these "stolen" artifacts.

    We see this happen with art and antiquities all the time. Those things taken from their original home, either in time of war or time of peace are destined to be fought over years later. So how long will it be before society changes and it seems reasonable that one interest group gets enough support and whomever purchases the fossils will be forced to give them back, perhaps even without getting their money back.

    In the United States, fossils are owned by the person/entity/organization/government that owns the land they are found on. If you read each of the descriptions they tell you where the fossils were dug up. That makes a lot of paleontologists mad but that's the way it is. Read this article:

    In the United States and many other countries, fossil specimens collected on private land become the property of the landowner. Trade in these fossils is entirely legal. While many academics and institutions oppose fossil trade in any form, others take a different stance.

    Now, I think I remember reading of cases where fossils were found in places like Yosemite and illegally excavated and sold illegally but that's because the state park owned them.

    Your analogy of ill-gotten wartime loot is kind of funny. When the descendants of dinosaurs come looking for their ancestors bones, we will have to cough them up.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Land Owner of the Excavation Site by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Your analogy of ill-gotten wartime loot is kind of funny. When the descendants of dinosaurs come looking for their ancestors bones, we will have to cough them up.

      I was wondering why that blue jay was giving me such a crap talking-to this morning.

    2. Re:The Land Owner of the Excavation Site by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      While I find no issue with the land owner owning the bones and fossilized remains and such, the issue is a little different when it comes to artifacts that aren't quite as old. Native American Indian artifacts that are now discovered might not be older than a few hundred years. And there can be little doubt in many cases that the land they are found on was at some point taken in a morally wrong way from the native inhabitants. And living descendants of those people might readily be found. So I can see how that might be a relavant issue in some cases.

    3. Re:The Land Owner of the Excavation Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll get right on giving Londonium back to the Romans.

    4. Re:The Land Owner of the Excavation Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rationale behind the ownership law is simple. A fossil is essentially a rock. The original biological substance has been replaced by inorganic matter through a process of mineralization. Since a rock is, by definition, a part of the land, then so too is the fossil. Hence the owner of the land also owns the fossil.

      For the benefit of preserving the knowledge of the past, we need to alter this ridiculous kind of law. Fossils may only be rocks (and even this is debatable because the extent of mineralization may not be complete) but their unique method of formation endows them with a special status -- a status that deserves protection.

    5. Re:The Land Owner of the Excavation Site by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1

      I believe the parent of your post is pointing out that the rules can change in the future. Sure, the current owners of the fossils may own them, but what's to stop the state from creating a new law: "All your fossils are belong to us"*? They already do this with sunken (pirate) treasure, and it would not surprise me if some interest group (paleontological lobby) was able to persuade congress that it is in the best interest of (us|them|the state|science) that they have access to all fossils, and not just the ones they can afford.

      So even though the "descendants of dinosaurs" may not come looking for the fossils as a WWII descendant might look for their stolen painting, I fully believe the analogy was quite insightful.

      *IANAL, but I believe this will be the exact legal jargon in the likely legislation

    6. Re:The Land Owner of the Excavation Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll get right on giving Londonium back to the Romans.

      I think most historians and archealogists agree that there were Britons living in the general area of London before any Roman settlement, so you'd only have to give back the Roman artifacts and ruined buildings, not the land itself. On the other hand, the Welsh are the most direct decendants of both the Roman and Pre-Roman Britons, with the modern English being a large part Germanic (anglo-saxons and all that) and/or Norse. So I guess London and a large part of modern-day England should be given to the Welsh. :P

    7. Re:The Land Owner of the Excavation Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the parent of your post is pointing out that the rules can change in the future. Sure, the current owners of the fossils may own them, but what's to stop the state from creating a new law: "All your fossils are belong to us"*?

      They might run up against something called the "takings clause".

       

      They already do this with sunken (pirate) treasure,

      If by "do this" you mean "make new laws to deprive people of ownership of things they previously legally acquired under the old laws", you might like to cite an example of this being done with sunken treasure.

  15. It's a huge fraud! by EWAdams · · Score: 4, Funny

    Assertions that these "dinosaur" "fossils" are really the bones of early species are just a con. The Universe was created approximately 6000 years ago and these so-called fossils were placed in the earth by God to test our faith. He's trying to find out if we can be tricked into using those tools of Satan, logic and evidence.

    Good Creationists could call the Las Vegas police and have this auction of fraudulent material shut down for making false claims about the age of the items for sale.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:It's a huge fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good Creationists could call the Las Vegas police and have this auction of fraudulent material shut down for making false claims about the age of the items for sale.

      That would actually be pretty awesome. Somebody shoudl definitely sue them. No judge could rule against them or else he'd have to say evolution is real or at least creationism is wrong. I'd love to see the government weasel out of that. Ah well, at least I can dream ...

    2. Re:It's a huge fraud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not going to say which way I believe(since for what I'm posting it doesn't matter), but I'm not sure who you've been getting your creationist info from. Historically, what I've heard is not that the fossils were planted, but rather our method for calculating their age is flawed. After all, our current dating methods are based on essentially a guess as to what happens over millions of years based on what we have observed over a few hundred(at best).

      And then, of course, you have those who say that the "creation in six days" is not to be taken literally. Who's right? Nobody still living and breathing on this rock knows for sure...

    3. Re:It's a huge fraud! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I want to know how some of these fossils survived all of those H-Bomb explosions. Seemed to destroy the physical remains of all those space folk...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:It's a huge fraud! by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Nobody still living and breathing on this rock knows for sure...

      Sure, plenty of people know. Earth is about 4.54 Billion years old. Don't be silly.

  16. dinosaur sale? by theIsovist · · Score: 1

    Finally! my chance to buy another Vegasaurus has come! I hope the machine's been fixed by now.

  17. Re: Days by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "And then, of course, you have those who say that the "creation in six days" is not to be taken literally. "

    If you can get your friendly neighborhood creationist to allow for this, that's the compromise I can usually live with for conversation. Replacing "day" which we are now pretty fierce calling 24 hours with "day" from "In *MY* day we didn't have lawns, we had to assemble the biocarbon molecules for each blade of grass by hand", then "life in six eras (days)" is fine.

    Life IS pretty neat, so sometimes it is pretty comfy to think of a Deist force that guided life that doesn't "talk personally" to people. Most of where ultra-orthodox religion gets stuck is in superlatives of God as Perfect. Replace that with "Pretty Blessed Good" and all the arguments melt away. ("Gee, we're not sure what $Deity was thinking when ___ allowed Down's Syndrome to happen, but ___ is still Blessed Good so I'll worship ____ anyway."

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  18. Dino action eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need to take my brain medicines, i swear i read that as Dinosaur Action in Las Vegas.

  19. Debating the literal truth of old Jewish legends. by EWAdams · · Score: 1

    Makes about as much sense as debating the literal truth of Grimm's fairy tales or Australian aboriginal tales or the Hopi creation myths.

    I suspect there are more Christians alive today claiming to believe the literal truth of Genesis than there were Jews who believed it when Genesis was written down in the first place. Legends are just that: legends.

    Personally, I prefer to believe that human beings are the offspring of the Son of God and a female bear (the Korean creation myth). It makes at least as much sense.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
  20. Dinosaur Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Six million dollars for a T. rex skeleton? They could do much better if they ground up the (fossilized) bones and sold them a few grams at a time as a sex potency remedy. There already is a big market for such products in SE Asia. In fact, considering the potential profit, it's a wonder more fossils don't suffer this particular fate.

    For this reason, we need to protect all fossil relics as national and historic treasures. Without national, or even global, legislation there will be nothing to prevent the unscrupulous and unprincipled scavengers from destroying forever the priceless knowledge of the past.

  21. Really like to go see this by xrayspx · · Score: 1

    My brother-in-law works at Bonhams and Butterfields, and was involved in building out the display, as he works in the department that deals with fossils and minerals. So you'd think I'd have seen some really awesome "In-Progress" photos. You'd be wrong. I guess I have to fly to Vega$ and get a look first-hand.

  22. Private Property by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    "Is our economy so bad..."

    Uh, acquiring fossils has pretty much always been a private pursuit. Regardless of how the economy is right now, this is nothing new.

    "Maybe it's time we energize a little more funding into the arts and history."

    That wont solve the issue of where these are being found... mostly on private property. If they're under ground someone else owns, they get to do with it as they please, period. What could be done is to raise money, gather a crew, and then tell landowners "Hey, we think there might be dinosaur bones here... if we pay you X amount of dollars, can we dig them up and keep them?" If the owner agrees, then everyone is happy. And if he doesn't, then you look for your fossils elsewhere.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  23. any dino dna there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any dino dna there?

  24. cannagddahuwonatwoandthreesold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really hope this dinosaur auction is being emcee'd by a 250-words-per-minute champion livestock auctioneer.

  25. Very misguided of you. Evolution is a religion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You weren't around when the supposed creation occured in count'em six 24-hour periods. The same is to say that I wasn't around to witness a mutation or improvement to a species of berthed animal to pass that gene on into more generations of trial to correct/bless a line of creature with a better perfection.

    They are both phylosophies that don't exist in the NOW, because we are NOW not yesterday and tomorrow. When someone finds a skeleton preserved in soil, all they can say is it died; none know if it passed on those genes to purport "evolution." When an archaeologist extracts a clay pot with 2000 B.C etched in the bottom by its maker and found among the debris of a hurricaane then we can't reason it by-word that it's a hoax when it's full of freeze-dried noodles. The error will always be by interpretation of somthing we weren't around to witness, so start a new religion to spread your Certainty!

    On the same notion, "God" definitively is being misused outside of the canon for which it was constructed; John the Baptist defined God as "truth, love, and spirit" yet in other canon it is no different than a wicked man walking the Earth accomplishing Creation within the present after a chaotic original creation. It's no different than NASA creating the Hull of a spacecraft and calling it complete, then they go about creating the internals/furnishings and declaring it complete (that's 2 creations that occured, one while outside of "the box" the other while subject-to/inside "the box"). There is somthing occuring in all these religions that requires more science to discern than the credit that it's criticizers are devoting to mis-interpret it for their use.

    I've never once used my interpretations to earn money or solicit for it's indoctrination to spread into schools, because it never changed science; and with it, it ordered science to build the school by matter not religion. Evolution, noodles, Adam and Eve... I wasn't there; I need a can-opener today to open a can, and a bottle-opener to pop the lid of a bottled beverage: Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.

  26. Kansas Critters by sonofporkins · · Score: 1

    Someday when you've been banished to the most mundane drive in the USA (I-70 through western Kansas and eastern Colorado), make a stop in Hays, KS, and visit the Sternberg Museum of Natural History. They have an incredible collection of fossils (many from the same Kansas regions which produced the marine fossils being auctioned off from Gove, Logan counties) and some robotic big boys (like a reactionary T-Rex) to keep the kids happy. http://www.fhsu.edu/sternberg/ You can also check out the world famous "fish-in-a-fish" exhibit, very cool stuff. For an hour or two, you'll completely forget how hideous the rest of your 4 1/2 drive to KC or Denver is looking.

  27. Re:Debating the literal truth of old Jewish legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I prefer to believe that human beings are the offspring of the Son of God and a female bear (the Korean creation myth). It makes at least as much sense.

    Oh my diety-of-choice! Get these images out of my head!