What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
Need a Vacation? view!
bing.com - Bing(tm) scans 1 billion+ airfares to locate the ones that meet or beat the record low. Check every day.
94 Comments
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46The biggest question in my mind is whether there is any salvagable DNA. Probably not but hey, we all saw Jurrassic Park. :)
- Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Also, this could usher in a new era of fine dining. I for one REALLY want to know what a T-Rex steak would taste like.
- robbiedo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+251.Clone it.
2.Miniaturize it.
3.Sell to Paris Hilton.
4.Profit - NeoTechni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25How does it being old make it inaccurate?
- bogomill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20@Dradis
It probably tastes like chicken, since birds have been proven recently to have descended from dinosaurs.
But then again... everything tastes like chicken. - mateja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Clearly this is fried chicken. I mean come ooooooooon.
- superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15to the dolt who asked "is there any evidence that it is accurate?" in reference to the dating of dinosaur bones.....No. No evidence at all. Nobody has ever tested any form of dating process, we just made them up called it good and moved on. That's how science works. Scientists are really just a bunch of occult figures who work directly for satan out to destroy your personal belifes. How the ***** they came up with the computer you used to post your dribble is anybody's guess, but we are pretty sure it was some form of voodoo.
- erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I hope you intended that as a joke...
- Ripley_512, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Is that what T-rex thinks before it eats you?
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14God planted fake dinosaur giblets along with the bones :)
- tetrodotoxin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12This could easily lead to a whole new wave of information on prehistoric beasts. Interesting read.
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13YA! This is over 65 MILLION YEARS OLD. Definitely inaccurate.
- br0ck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I suspect someone going to the expense of attempting to clone a dinosaur would probably be able to afford to pressurize and oxygenate the room they keep it in.
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"1. Comets disintegrate too quickly."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html
Your source's claim that new comets cannot be formed is without basis in reality.
"2. Not enough mud on the sea floor."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html
"3. Not enough sodium in the sea."
Your source counters a hypothetical counter, but it appears to be a strawman. Your source does not rebut the actual response found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html
"4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
"7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.html
Do you have a source not so riddled with factual errors? - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10T-rex on a plane
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Now that i think about it, they're all theories. "
I believe that you do not understand what "theory" means in the context of science. - superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9digg screwed my comment up somehow... burry it please and here is the real one
to the dolt who asked "is there any evidence that it is accurate?" in reference to the dating of dinosaur bones.....No. No evidence at all. Nobody has ever tested any form of dating process, we just made them up called it good and moved on. That's how science works. Scientists are really just a bunch of occult figures who work directly for satan out to destroy your personal belifes. How the ***** they came up with the computer you used to post your dribble is anybody's guess, but we are pretty sure it was some form of voodoo.
You should burn your computer. - Cidixat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Managing to salvage enough DNA to clone one would be pretty incredible, but what I wonder is if there's enough to make, say, a kick-ass pair of tyrannosaurus-skin boots.
- Malik112099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I am NOT getting into the Ford Explorer ride at the park this thing's clone is gonna be in.....
- Arcadian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7They could fund paleontology forever if they could start doing that.
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8back when the dinosaurs were still alive, there was a lot more oxygen in the air. That's why insects were a lot bigger(breathed through their skin) and why all animals during the period were bigger(they didn't need to puff as much air).
If you create a dinosaur in today's environment, it'll survive, but it'll be huffing and wheezing from the day it's born to the day it dies. - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Can we finally settle this cold blooded/warm blooded thing? I'm never sure how to explain it to my students.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7the title describes exactly what is in the article
- Idealistic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"well, not everything tastes like chicken. humans are supposed to taste like pork."
I can confirm this. - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@Rocky....
are you some kid from that wacko christian religion brainwashing summer camp? - derek20cali, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The article says 70,000,000.
- superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4why would it turn out bad? they are just big animals....we have the brains and the guns
- Hiker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6When they first tasted chicken, I wonder what they thought it tasted like.
- Eronysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Theories cannot be proven only TASTED!!!
- elliotm01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just be sure to create a site B, as well.
- Teratogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3well, not everything tastes like chicken. humans are supposed to taste like pork.
- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Theories are tested to be proven. The sentence "theories can not be proven, only tested" is NONSENSE and biased. And the worst part is that ist implies that "only testing" is worse than "proof", while "testing" is in fact essential for any proof.
1. Scientific Theory does NOT mean "a guessed explanation for something strange that we just made up and that can not be argued about" but scientific theory means "something that explains multiple facts testable by a relatively simple general rule".
2. Idiots simply attack evolution because they do not understand it or because they understand that evolution means losing control over those who do not understand that religion itself was a process of evolution, therefore they try to undermine the scientific method itself. And they fail.
3. debunking creationist claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html is like beating a dead horse, just for the fun otf it! - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I always do.
- ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4MMMmmm... time for some T-rex BBQ.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3All lies.
Everyone reasonable knows that the earth is only 6000 years. God bless GWB. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you see jeff goldbloom, run for cover.
- goo321, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2doesn't their massive size mean they are warm blooded by default.
- 16777216, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I say we clone the bad boys, equip them with lasers and microwaves and take on the WORLD!
YEAH! - angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ummm - that places us, or at least our component elements along with the those of the aforementioned t-rex, right in the centre of the event known to most as the big bang. That is the hypothesised age of the universe we know and love. Where did you get 4.2x10^9 years come from?
- BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wait if its a year old then what did they find from the tests?
- billymachine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Just some creationists... move along, people...
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"or maybe there is soft tissue because its NOT 70 million years old.."
What evidence have you for this assertion? - drsnooks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ollj : no, it's not nonsense, it's the scientific method. You work out your theory, and use it to make predictions about what would occur in a given situation. Then you set up that situation in an experiment to test whether your prediction is accurate. If the prediction is wrong, then the theory invalidated. If the prediction is correct, then the theory survives. NOTE: you can never prove that the theory is correct, you can only prove that is incorrect. Just because the theory may have produced accurate predictions in every experiment to date, doesn't mean that the next experiment isn't going to invalidate it - one classic example being Newtonian gravity, another example being the Michelson-Morley experiment. You can read more here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- Viremia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While this isn't breaking news (I've read articles on this for months) it is interesting for many people. Including those who believe the Earth is only ~6000 years old. The discoverer of this is herself an evangelical christian and is greatly hurt that her findings are being perverted for the cause of what many consider illogical arguements: namely, the christian biblical literalists.
The discoverer has been beaten up by both sides: traditional paleontologists and christian fundamentalists. For someone who never wanted attention or controversy, she's unfortunately in the thick of it for all the wrong reasons. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey ive gt a really cool idea... What if they maybe extracted some dna from this, and got a few samples from heaps of other dinosaurs.. then they find some reasonably large island with heaps of tree's and put all of these dinosaurs on there... Maybe make it a park, and name it after one of the major periods of the time like maybe triassic, or jurassic..
It just came to me Then - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Does anyone actually believe soft tissue can last that long?"
No, but this question is meaningless because the soft tissue in question only became soft after a moisturization process.
"Perhaps people should start to reconsider our methods of testing dates."
Why? There is no evidence that any date testing was inaccurate. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Is there any evidence that it is accurate?"
Dating techniques are based upon established physical properties of the source material and tested against different dating techniques to determine consistency. Thus far no credible evidence exists to suggest that established dating methods are unreliably. - Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3what?
- Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If there isnt enough DNA to clone, just put some frog dna in. Jeez, havnt you seen jurrasic park?
- Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe someday in the future we'll be able to resurrect all the creatures we've helped to make extinct.
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is