Would *you* credit the notion T. rex was a pack hunter if new science hinted at that being fact?
957051
Since our notions of dinosurs are changing with every new discovery, it is an intriguing theory, but I would like evidence, not mere suggestions
775178
Yes, that's definitely why dinosaurs were so big -- another moon pulling on them! Why haven't all these smart scientists thought of such an obvious answer? And I'll bet that second moon crashed into the earth and killed all the dinosaurs too.
898714
No, it is false their use to be an old study on something like that. Someone thought with big heads and bulging eyes meant bigger brain. I think it was called craineology (I'm not sure how you spell it )but it turned out to be untrue.
1023108
The fossil history is false. The scientists don't know what they are talking about. Radiometric dating is flawed. Everything is a lie except the Bible. I am trying out the other side of this argument. It's pretty weak I must say.
156825
Well, first I probably should know what a somer meteorite is, right? But you wanted answers, not more questions, right? Sorry, again. Okay, but be warned that a renowned physics professor at the University of Texas, a Dr. Steven Wienberg, I think (I hope!) it was, once reamarked about how remarkable it seems that our questions always honestly generate far more new questions than answers, so I'm not completely out of line, here, contrary to what may be quite conventionally viewed as popular opinion, especially in this context, i.e. an experimental situation, to wit; Yahoo! ANSWERS, a beta program.\nI believe Dr. Weinberg was involved somewhat in chaos theory, among other quite facinating things, I'm sure.\nIf memory serves me right, the term "carbonaceous" refers to, specifically, a geological era or period characteristic in reference to the more general use of the term as being rich in carbon, or consisting of carbon. Given carbon to be often associated with our familiar forms of DNA-based life, if it can be reasonably and plausibly demonstrated that any significant quantity or quality of carbon was introduced into the terrestrial environment via space, then this should prove to be interesting, at least, if not, indeed, rather provocative and even potentially quite instructive in terms of proper, universally themed deictic and didactic.\nSo, in my expert opinion, as the world's very first, ever, formal fact theorist, my best answer to your question is, "Good Question!"\nKeep up the good work, and keep excellent track of your sources, even though they shall invariably change with "progress" and "improvement" such as that so far demonstrated by several millennia of so-so documented record. (Everyone, especially the Catholic Church, for example, wants to rewrite history. Even the noble scientists pursuing "nothing but the truth", and so on in their quest to convert followers to their newest, "modern" religion, in theory AND practice, have been known to tamper with data for personal ambition, just a bit too frequently for comfort, among other things...)
924790
These are additional news releases  which may have tidbits of related information. \n\nhttp://www.nbc17.com/news/10205521/detail.html\nhttp://www.bitsofnews.com/content/view/4389/44/\nhttp://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/21/dinofind_din.html?category=dinosaurs
1040464
I believe that science has established the continental drift, and that dinosaurs and humans never lived at the same time. As for christians believing in it well, the Bible doesn't say anything about either but if they believe the thing about dinos & human or disbelieve continental drift, then they must not pay too much attention to science or history.
361715
Evolution Forgeries\n\n\nThere is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.\n\n\nPiltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!\n\nIn 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man's. These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown man". Alleged to be 500,000 years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on "Piltdown man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution. No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject.63 While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed Piltdown "a discovery of transcendant importance to the prehistory of man".64 \nIn 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum's Paleontology Department, attempted to use "fluorine testing", a new test used for determining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was not older than a few thousand years old.\nIt was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements.65 In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said: "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?"66 In the wake of all this, "Piltdown man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years. \n\n\nNebraska Man: A Pig's Tooth\n\nIn 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called "Nebraska man", in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to hu
193198
While it might be possible that some of these creatures exist, it certainly can't be said to be 'probable'.\n\nWe are still finding new species of mammals and birds all the time.  Genetic studies have even shown us that some of the critters we thought we knew are more diverse than we thought.\n\nRecently it was discovered that the species we know as the African elephant is in fact two species, a savannah species and a forest species.  So we have 'found' one of the largest species of land mammal just in the last few years.  Another study found that there was a population of the Bactrian camel (the one with two humps) that was actually a separate species too.\n\nSo it is possible that there may be some critter hidden off in the deep forest somewhere that we've never seen before.  But the chances of something like Bigfoot/Sasquatch remaining undiscovered in the rather well explored forests of North America are rather low.\n\nThe best chance for new, exciting and incredible discoveries are in the seas.  We really have barely scratched the surface in our exploration there, and there could be all kinds of new, even huge and exciting finds down there.\n\nJust in the last few years, the Megasquid was described, whose body is larger than that of the Giant Squid (although the tentacles aren't as long), actual live footage of the Giant Squid was finally taken, and Coelacanths were found off the coast of Indonesia, 10 000 km from where it was thought was the only place they existed.
955765
I have studied earth science. \nFirst of all, their scientific name is a (best estimate) i.e. in their opinion. so the wee table is just their own version of what refers to modern day equivalent in science. \nThe only evidence they use to suggest the bible is talking about a dinosaur (rather than elephant or hippo) is a tail like a Cedar.  this could apply to crocodile but they don't mention that - apart from to say "oh -BTW it can't be a croc eh?" without actually giving any decent reason as to why.\nI don't know why I can't read Job 41 18-21without realising it breathes fire.  Such obviousness escapes me.  As also does the beetle chat. err...because one thing (and I haven't bothered to look up if it can) breathes fire, another surely can? What - how does that work? Because a flea can jump 50 times it's own heigth, can I? Also, all earth scientist would love to have a fire breathing lizard, but no studies have proved it's existance.   \nThen later (I'm skimming this now, there's loads of made up stuff), they say "Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information" - well I'd kind of like to see the other way round.  Proving a negative is, well, impossible.  If I said there is a planet made of jelly a milllion light years away, does that make me correct until proven wrong? \nthen they do that wonderful thing of "hmm yes we have evidence of dinosaurs being created one day before man etc etc...but in order to see it you have to read through pages and pages of more subjective chat", personally I gave up cos if they are that confident they would put there evidence right in their on their page, or at least give a description of how.  \nThis page is someone's belief and doen't make me think anything other than what I have studied through rational science.
328647
It would have laid eggs.  If you think of marsupials as being the simpliest form of mammal and the dimetrodon as being a more distant ancestor we can conclude as platypus, echindna etc as laying eggs so did dimetrodon.\nThis is just going by logic and evolutionary theory, I cannot prove it laid eggs.  We don't know for certain as (as far as I can discover) no eggs have been found - although one of the maxims of archaeology is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
514481
If you're talking about the "tracks" in Paluxy river, Texas, these have been around, and been debunked, since the mid 1970's.  Even many creationist sources now recognize that the footprints are bogus.\n\nHowever, some creationist web sites and books *still* trot these out, decades after they've been debunked, as "evidence" of the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans, even though the overwhelming evidence is that they went extinct 65 *million* years before the first humans appeared.  \n\nIn other words, any source you see that brings up the Texas footprints is *not* the place you want to going for scientific information.
560911
The fundamentals of Darwin's theory have proven correct time and time again for 150 years. The details are the only thing worth debating. That's enough research for me. When someone finds a fossil of a man sticking a spear in a dinosaur, then I'll start wondering about Darwin.
26194
"they" don't because they don't really know.  when early paleontologists started reconstructing dinosaur fossils, there was not much known about forensic biology.  our understanding of the way bones fit together and the biomechanics of all those little bumps and ridges on the bones was not very complete, and so when the skeletons were reconstructed they ended looking more like lizards than birds, mostly due to the missing information being filled in by the early scientists' prejudices and assumptions.\n\na lot of the recent work on dinosaurs that asserts their bird-like characteristics (feathers, warm blooded, etc) are inferred from the bone structure and are pretty far-removed from the physical evidence.  the notion that dinosaurs are like birds is controversial because it's new, and all people (including scientists) take time to accept something that upsets the conventional wisdom.  it is good science and probably correct, but without any direct evidence it is pretty well impossible to know for sure.\n\nhowever some very-detailed fossils discovered recently in china appear to actually have feathers!  so this is pretty exciting and very good evidence for the notion of birdlike dinosaurs.  nevertheless people remain a) reluctant to change their views and b) uninformed about recent developments in paleontology.  most folks in the public are informed by books from their childhood and movies like 'jurassic park'.  the public takes a long time to come around to new discoveries in science, particularly when they challenge older models and when a field is changing rapidly.  it is also considered fairly irresponsible to present a controversial and barely-tested theory as "fact" by journalists and museum curators.  when the controversy in the scientific community settles down and a consensus is reached, then public education in museums and articles can begin and popular belief will change.
1102153
Dang, are you the one who made the dinosaurse go extinct... Note... I think we found the culprit...
195123
no.  you're going to get a variety of responses ranging from the reasonable, like david's to the utterly ridiculous, like a lot of the others already here.\n\nas for the claims that the crater in the yucatan is supposition or "only a theory" (ever heard these words before?) there is a lot of evidence for it:\n\n"Probably the most convincing evidence for a worldwide catastrophe was the discovery of the crater which has since been named Chicxulub Crater. This so-called smoking gun is centered on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and was discovered by Tony Camargo and Glen Pentfield while working as geophysicists for the Mexican oil company PEMEX. What they reported as a circular feature later turned out to be a crater estimated to be 180 kilometers in diameter. Other researchers would later find that the end-Cretaceous extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs had lasted for thousands of years instead of millions of years as had previously been thought. This would be the final piece of evidence that convinced the vast majority of scientists that this extinction resulted from a point event that is most probably an extra-terrestrial impact and not from increased volcanism and climate change (which would spread its main effect over a much longer time period)."\n\nIt seems to be a bit more than a layer of clay in the ground.\n\nwhether this is worthy enough for biblical mention is debatable, but it seems that such a large impact would have had tremendous effects on any living species at the time, including (as creationists claim) humans.  why is there no mention of it either in the bible or other human cultures?  probably because it happened long before any humans were around.  it would have been a very important event, more important than a lot of the mentioned events in the bible.\n\nand if it is mentioned in the bible, please provide a passage.
70220
Ow!  My toes!  ;) (kidding)\n\nI think it's ludicrous that people are treating the theory as if there's any real debate among scientists on the matter.  Global Warming is far, far, far more contested than is evolution; yet in the popular press, you'd never know it.\n\nWhat I get sick of is all the crap about "missing links" or whatever.  Quite frankly, I don't give a rats @$$ about the fossil record.  Sure, it was important to Darwin when he formulated the theory, but one can't really expect that the fossil record should be any where near complete, and all the arguments against evolution focus on this field.  I studied molecular biology, and it is in molecular biology that you'll find way, way stronger support for the theory.\n\nWhen I list the sorts of evidence that come from molecular biology (Homologous proteins, the near universality of the genetic code (eg the relation between codons and amino acids), genetic drift in non-essential parts of homologous proetiens, DNA technology that can show relationship, developmental homology (ie ontogeny and it's relationship to phylogeny), etc) I get people acting like I presented no evidence because they couldn't even understand that the list I've given actually is evidence.  It takes a long time to understand the manner in which DNA becomes a protein, and the way that proteins fold, the way they work, and the way their related.  Until you understand that, the "Big Picture" is not clear.  But to those that *do* understand the Big Picture, it becoems obvious.\n\nI can't explain to a starving thrid world farmer why it's in his interests to become literate, along with the rest of his village, so they can better understand how to, say, help prevent epidemics in the short term (by being able to understand routes of transmission better) or bring about democracy in the long term.  But living in the industrialized west, the benefits of literacy are manifest.  The person who doesn't understand science seems to me in many ways to be like that starving farmer.\n\nPeople who understand science will dictate the fate of much in the world, and they will have the power to do much good.  By not making an effort to learn science, you set yourself back greatly.  But by actively attacking science--like the starving farming burning a public library, or like the Haitian who steals the copper wires set up to build an electrical infrastructure that would bring long-term prosperity in exchange for a short-term benefit in selling scrap metal--the skeptic zealots do themselves and the entire Christian faith a great disservice.\n\nIn response to your additional questions:\n1-4 are NOT--repeat, they are NOT--aspects of the theory of evolution by natural selection.  This is exactly what I'm talking about--people are criticizing a theory they don't even begin to understand.\n\n1) refers to the Big Bang theory, not evolution by natural selection.  2) is a theory of planetary formation, not a theory of speciation.  3) and 4) are aspects of a theory of abiogenesis, which is different from evolution.  Only 5) actually regards evolution.\n\nEvolution by natural selection dictates that small variations between members of a species accumulate over the long term to become major changes, resulting in speciation.  And yes, I believe that that happened.\n\nI have issues with the big bang, but those are not relevant here--they are for reasons of physics that go beyond what I can explain right here.\n\nPlanetary formation, while not a part of evolution, is largely unavoidable.  All matter has mass, and this results in gravitational attraction.  If dust is in space, it will collapse in on itself.  Physics-wise, this is about as mind-blowing as the fact that water + dirt = mud.  It would be a greater stretch of the imagination to imagine such formation not occuring, because the laws that dictate such a formation are at work all around us all the time.\n\n