Users who Dugg This
Vladimir Bundalo
3158 Followers
Vladimir Bundalo
3158 Followers
Shovelbaby
2110 Followers
Shovelbaby
2110 Followers
scenicanemiaAug 1, 2010
Oh well, Torosaurus sounds like way more fun anyway.
sanmanAug 2, 2010
but, but, all those Flintstones episodes... they can't be wrong
jaredennisclarkAug 2, 2010
They're eliminating the name 'Torosaurus' and merging the two under 'Triceratops'. The name isn't going anywhere.
navicertsAug 2, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mutatednantukoAug 3, 2010
Exactly, and this is the fourth time I've seen it being reported wrong.
daimposterAug 2, 2010
It's the name they don't keep that never existed, even if the actual truth is the opposite. When the Montreal Expos moved to DC and changed the name to the Washington Nationals...the Expos ceased to exist even though all they did was move locations. But when the Minneapolis Lakers moved to LA or the Baltimore Colts to Indy, the franchise kept the name and continued with the 'history'.
daftnationAug 2, 2010
Taken from the actual article:
"Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner."
paraswarmAug 2, 2010
Basically, the creature will be renamed to whoever wins the 3-horned Dinosaur Popularity contest of 2010.
jjesusfreak01Aug 2, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
bubba9999Aug 2, 2010
Torosaurus sounds like it's made out of Tuna. What a wuss.
do not like!
acegidAug 2, 2010
Totorosaurus are even better
tiakAug 2, 2010
So, we're digging a Gizmodo article about the Boing Boing article, about the New Scientist article, about a study published by people at the Museum of the Rockies?...
Well, I guess it's appropriate that we play the journalistic equilvelant of telephone for this particular story...
christoastAug 9, 2010
at least it wasn't totally wrong. Torosaurus is really... really triceratops like.
earthtonesAug 1, 2010
Boo! Down with science! (Love the triceratops.)
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Sorry, bud...Iguanadon ftw.
When I was a kindergartener, everyone liked the Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops. A couple kids liked the Brontosaurus, Pterodactyl, and Stegosaurus, but the Iguanadon was my reptile of choice. For some reason I liked the idea of stabbing people with a thumbs up...seemed oddly poetic.
dreid88Aug 2, 2010
Reptile?
oirvineAug 2, 2010
From the real article (not the blog s**t digg loves to link to) "Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner."
Triceratops lives on
killozapAug 2, 2010
are we naming favorite dinosaurs? if so, I vote Deinonychus (and basically all dromaeosaurids)
I wouldn't say using "reptile" in that context was wrong; after all, he included Pterodactyl in the list, which isn't a dinosaur. It's debatable whether one should call a dinosaur a reptile, but the working definition of "reptile" -- scaly tetrapods that lay amniotic eggs -- doesn't exclude the dinosaurian lineage.
lexisnexisAug 2, 2010
I always loved the ankylosaurus, sure he's a little dorky but he's well fortified, unassuming and has an awesome club on his tail to take out predators. Herbivores ftw!
dephextwinAug 2, 2010
Deinonychus kicks ass. (Well, more accurately... it leaps onto and claws it.)
dreid88Aug 2, 2010
@killOzap
I like you. You know what you're saying. But the list he made: they're all classified as Archosaur. But not all "reptiles" are classified as such. It just bothers me when people think a dinosaur was basically a giant lizard. And I do mean "lizard" in the taxonomically-accurate meaning. Birds are all that are left from the dinosaurian lineage...from the direct lineage. Any older reptiles have a common ancestor much further back. That's all I was driving at. (Please don't say you're in the 5% of scientists who insist birds are not dinosaurs). Anyways... no one's ever going to read this. All the better.
herostratusAug 2, 2010
I can't believe that no one has figured this out yet. The Triceratops has always existed, its the Torosaurus that is the myth.
thetxiAug 2, 2010
They are all a myth, put there by God to test your faith.
thecheesemonkeyAug 2, 2010
I hope you are joking
wussAug 7, 2010
haha... he said God. Religion is so funny!
harrypowersAug 2, 2010
Damn you science! Damn you to hell.
curbeAug 2, 2010
hey, you know what's even cooler than the triceratops?
EVERY OTHER DINOSAUR THAT EVER EXISTED.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Except for your mom.
curbeAug 2, 2010
*sigh*.... I was only quoting Dwight Shrute
darkmist29Aug 2, 2010
Hooray Beer!
andyd273Aug 2, 2010
First the Brontosaurus, then Pluto, now the Triceratops... Quit messing with stuff, Science!
christoastAug 9, 2010
The triceratops is on pluto
monkeysmasherAug 13, 2010
Coming to the game a little late...... But speaking from experience, Jack Horner is an enormous, egotistical prick. He never even earned a degree in his field... my school just gave him one to look cooler...
seanstuartAug 19, 2010
My childhood is ruined.
redcolumbineAug 1, 2010
No Triceratops? Brontosaurus, Pluto the planet, now Triceratops.
c010rb1indusaAug 2, 2010
Just goes to show, for all we claim to 'know', we don't know s**t!
kenjuraAug 2, 2010
A small group of paleontologists is considering deleting one species of dinosaur. I guess Science is entirely wrong.
I'll go get my Bible out of the basement.
gigglestickAug 2, 2010
Who said Bible kenjura? You can be humble about Human capability and knowledge without religion. You should try humility. If you think we know a majority of the information that is knowable, then please, elaborate on that.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.
bdog2g2Aug 2, 2010
^^
That's us dude!
** plays air guitar **
gv402Aug 2, 2010
Woah wait- what happened to brontosaurus?
redcolumbineAug 2, 2010
Turned out to be made of parts of more than one kind of animal. Diplodocus is close, though.
remeloxAug 2, 2010
Mismatched bones. Unlike the Triceratops which existed in the same way that calf, chick, pup, or foal existed. Except I guess they are actually going to remove the designation Torosaurus and make the whole species Triceratops.
uselesstriviaAug 2, 2010
Animals that resemble the "brontosaurus" are still on the books. Most of what made up Brontosaurus is now called Apatosaurus. There's also Brachiosaurus. I think various combinations of these species and others are what were mismatched into the original Brontosaurus form, but the overall shape is similar. We now understand that they didn't walk around with tall upright necks though. They probably walked around with necks and tails straight out counterbalancing each other.
ultramagnus0001Aug 2, 2010
So Ray Toro can't say they named a dinosaur after him anymore!?!
swipecatAug 2, 2010
Blame Othniel Charles Marsh. In 1877 he described an "Apatosaurus", then two years later he found most of an Apatosaurus mixed with bones from other dinosaurs that he named "Brontosaurus". In 1903, other paleontologists said that the first skeleton was fine bus the second was bulls**t, so the name "Brontosaurus" was officially dropped over 100 years ago, so it's remarkable that it persisted so long in popular culture.
r0g3rAug 2, 2010
The initial Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus bones found were of a child and adult of the same species. Marsh incorrectly identified them as two species, these were two incomplete skeletons. For display he put a head found in a different location on the "brontosaurus" skeleton, which was otherwise nearly complete. Later it was found that the Brontosaurus had the wrong head and was also the same species as Apatosaurus. Apatosaurus was the first name used, and therefore took precedence, and brontosaurus was retired, though it still persists in books and other media even now.
princetrunksAug 3, 2010
Little Foot has no mother and no species :-(
cockofdoodieAug 2, 2010
SERIOUSLY... then WTF was the blue Power Ranger rolling around in?
misternilsAug 2, 2010
well these days, a time machine space ship or something like that...
steveocoAug 2, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
rain12913Aug 2, 2010
A baby Torosaurus...
truebluejp90Aug 2, 2010
Well think about it.
The original sequence went:
"MASTADON, PTERODACTYL, TRICERATOPS, SABER-TOOTH TIGER, TYRANNOSAURUS"
Now if he'd said Torosaurus, kids probably would've been confused between the blue and red ranger powers since we were mostly under 10 at the time.
/overthinking nostalgic moment
thecoffeeAug 2, 2010
GO GO POWER RANGERS!
thecoinmanAug 2, 2010
The most amazing thing about science is it's ability to consistently prove itself wrong. -Anonymous
Don't worry, in 100 years they will be laughing that we thought gravity was real....
jkalAug 2, 2010
yeah because in 100 years it would be commonly accepted we live in a holographic universe.
siafuAug 2, 2010
NY times had an article about gravity not being real a few weeks ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html
nickdbAug 2, 2010
I quite like that Science often comes out and says
"Old on, we stuffed up, more evidence has come to light and we're wrong, this is what we've now found out"
Better than never changing with the times and believing stuff from 1000s of years ago.
notthatnoiseAug 2, 2010
except all those articles on gravity not being real are philosophical articles, not scientific ones. they basically say "here is an alternative to gravity, with no evidence or mathematical backing." sure, it could be right, but so could every religion.
steelchickenAug 2, 2010
Jump out of an upper story window and tell me its not real.
gradiesAug 2, 2010
it's not a real force, but it is real. In the same sense that the centrifugal force isn't a real force, but you can feel it. They are both pseudo-forces. Forces that arise from being immersed in an accelerating reference frame. The curvature of space-time results in accelerating reference frames. Gravity is geometry not a force. Read about general relativity if you want the math. Its a good way to learn Riemannian geometry, which is far superior to Euclidean. It gets cool when you see that a parabola is a straight line through curved space, and the inner angles of triangles no longer add up to pi or tau/2.
essarAug 2, 2010
As long as they don't take the Stegosaurus from me, I won't be entirely heart-broken.
danielvutran1Aug 2, 2010
We exist only because I do.
oo7evanAug 2, 2010
I'm sick of you Pluto apologists.
notthatnoiseAug 2, 2010
the thing I don't get is that throughout history we have added and nixed plenty of planets, and yet pluto was the one people got hung up on.
netantAug 2, 2010
What is a Pluto apologist?
Someone who agrees with the IOAA designation that Pluto is NOT a planet?
Someone who believes the IOAA is wrong for not designating Pluto a planet and then apologizes for being a luddite?
Someone who thinks Proserpina was wronged by Pluto?
Someone who let a Disney character poop on the carpet?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I like how you had to specify Pluto *the planet*
greg2kAug 2, 2010
I think your brain accidentally by zero.
armchairdiggerAug 2, 2010
"It was already known that triceratops skulls changed throughout their development, but not that the final result was a torosaurus. Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.500-morphosaurs-how-shapeshifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us.html
bemyonefishAug 2, 2010
In addition to the dinosaurs + pluto things, when I was in elementary school (and I'm 21, so ...recently) we had FOUR oceans. Indian, Arctic, Atlantic, Pacific. No. Now there's the Southern ocean as well. I don't know if they just discovered the water or what, but we now have five oceans.
nickdbAug 2, 2010
Not sure what you were taught but way over 21 and learnt about the Southern ocean at school.
studiopenguinAug 2, 2010
The Southern Ocean is still technically an unsettled matter. It was included in the 2nd edition of IHO's "Limits of Oceans and Seas" back around 1940, subsequently removed from the 3rd edition in the early 1950s, and reinstated in the 4th edition about a decade ago. That said, the 4th edition still hasn't been formally published, and many geographic and cartographic organizations do not yet recognize the fifth ocean.
National Geographic had this to say on the subject last year: "Like many mapmakers, the National Geographic Society does not officially recognize the Southern Ocean. According to our Maps Division, 'The Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans merge into icy waters around Antarctica. Some define this as an ocean—calling it the Antarctic Ocean, Austral Ocean, or Southern Ocean—but there is no international agreement on the name and the extent of a fifth ocean.'"
sreyanotfilcAug 2, 2010
You forgot, Raptors had feathers. :(
http://www.cracked.com/article_18627_6-things-from-history-everyone-pictures-incorrectly.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/dromaeosauridae.html
vbullingerAug 2, 2010
I know, what's next? Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny?
jumboj3tAug 2, 2010
My wife is from Streator, IL where the guy who "discovered" Pluto is from. I kid you not, there are banners in store windows that say "PLUTO: BELIEVE." You can even buy a t-shirt:
http://www.cafepress.com/+pluto_still_believe_kids_tshirt,71935067?sourcecode=affiliate&cmp=pfc--f--us--070--71935067&utm_source=froogle&utm_medium=productfeed&utm_term=71935067&utm_campaign=kids-light-t-shirt
Looks like they skipped the debate and went straight into denial.
netantAug 2, 2010
The sad thing is that Tomlinson discovery was still quite a astronomic feat. It was the farthest KNOWN orbiting celestial body for many decades after its initial discovery.
Wonder how the Illini will handle Pluto NOT being the largest Kuiper Belt body..
MicealOcorraAug 2, 2010
HOLY CRAP. You give up loving dinosaurs in elementary school, go to highschool and f**k really dumb chicks, start smoking pot and drinking like a fish. Then you start a regular life of office work and repetition...find a site named digg, join it because work work sucks, comment on a few things only to finally come across that the world of dinosaurs you once knew had forever changed because scientists mixed up the bones?! A FEW YEARS AGO?!
SOUTHERN OCEAN?!
Im blacking out.
oryxAug 2, 2010
I want to believe...
bettverbotenAug 1, 2010
But....but all those dinosaur books I read to my boys.
Triceratops was their favorite!
danconiaAug 2, 2010
Your children are f**kED!
sreyanotfilcAug 2, 2010
Who's your God now bettverboten!?
random314Aug 2, 2010
Looks like they'll have to remake Jurassic Park...
getoffmybridgeAug 2, 2010
Now they're going to grow up to be fashion designers and interior decorators.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Thats ok, they still have Santa, the tooth fairy, Jesus, leprechauns, unicorns. Y'know all the stuff we don't believe in as adults.
silverback101Aug 2, 2010
Time to teach those boys to man up....take their favourite Triceratops toys and books and load up the shot gun...it's time to put down ol'Tritops.
fredfredricksonAug 3, 2010
Looks like their new favorite dinosaur is a juvenile form of a Torosaurus.
ar0neAug 1, 2010
Lets change the word "Animal" to "Shangleberry" so we can make a headline that says "Animals never existed!". Seriously, just because your changing its name, doesn't mean it never existed.
kibblesnbittsAug 2, 2010
That is an absolute disgrace to the shangleberry kingdom.
deathstrykAug 2, 2010
*Lets change the word "Animal" to "Pokemon"!
once908Aug 2, 2010
Now... what I could never figure out in the show was the obvious non-pokemon animals that appeared...
thetxiAug 2, 2010
You ever tried stuffing a dog into a poke ball?
I have, and let me tell you, it ain't pretty.
zincsaucierAug 2, 2010
they do. we just found out triceratops could evolve into torosaurus
davidtcAug 2, 2010
No one is changing any word to anything. They are saying a "boy" is the same thing as a "man", just the two are different cause of their age. So really they aren't two different types of species.
Now why that matters? No clue. We have names for most things that are younger and as they grow older we call them something different. Perhaps the person who found the Torosaurus has a grudge against the person who found the Triceratops and doesn't want that person to have any credit
remeloxAug 2, 2010
Triceratops will be the prevailing name so it's the Torosaurus guy getting the shaft.
68024Aug 2, 2010
So you're saying boys never existed?
fattehboiAug 2, 2010
*you're
peterabelardAug 2, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
notthatnoiseAug 2, 2010
you're an idiot. he's not saying the scientists are wrong, he's saying the headline is bulls**t. just because we've reclassified triceratops, doesn't mean the animal we were referring to never existed, its just called something different.
jabbrwockeyAug 2, 2010
Thank you captain obvious peteralabard.
jumboj3tAug 2, 2010
*you're
kwcarpenterAug 2, 2010
Despite the fact that you're the second person to do this, I'm still digging you up because that typo causes me physical pain.
ar0neAug 2, 2010
*you're
mweatherAug 2, 2010
They didn't change the name, they changed the species. The species it was previously classified as (Triceratops) does not exist.
fredfredricksonAug 3, 2010
...but they didn't just change the name. Reading comprehension FTL.
boigboigAug 1, 2010
Similar: http://digg.com/general_sciences/T_Rex_like_Fossil_Forces_Dino_Evolution_Re_Think?t=29855257#c29859635
So, science is not able to follow the fossil record from baby T-Rex to Papa T-Rex, but they can from fish to primate? I am not surprised.
Now I can add ....
So, science is not able to follow the fossil record from baby Triceratops to Papa Torosaurus, but they can from fish to primate? I am not surprised.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killozapAug 1, 2010
FTA:
"The duo say there is a clear transition from triceratops into torosaurus as the animals grow older. For example, the oldest specimens of triceratops show a marked thinning of the bone where torosaurus has holes, suggesting they are in the process of becoming fenestrated"
Seems like science is now able to follow the record.
harabeckAug 1, 2010
@boig
"So, science is not able to follow the fossil record from baby T-Rex to Papa T-Rex, but they can from fish to primate? "
First, it's actually easier to do the latter than the former. Since the morphology changes, it's hard to tell the juveniles and adults are related when you find them in the same layers. But when looking at "fish to primate" you're looking across thousands of fossils, so you're more likely to see both across the longer time span. Even if you don't know if you're looking at a juvenile or an adult, it doesn't matter because you're looking at the bigger picture. It's the larger morphology changes that are important. Second, the fossil record is only one line of evidence for evolution. Darwin didn't have access to very many fossils at all, and DNA is proves evolution all by itself.
caseycooldAug 2, 2010
Did anyone else look at the URL?
http://digg.com/general_sciences/The_Triceratops_Never_Existed_3
3
if you click http://digg.com/general_sciences/The_Triceratops_Never_Existed
and
http://digg.com/general_sciences/The_Triceratops_Never_Existed_2
this has already been on digg for a while...wtf?
rogorAug 1, 2010
Sweet jebus, the creationists are going to have a field day with this, comon science get your s**t togeather.
hardwalkerAug 1, 2010
wouldn't it be the opposite?
this would be like super duper fast evolution
nubnubAug 2, 2010
http://www.jamesrb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png
nickdbAug 2, 2010
News flash - scientific methods improve, as you carry on studying something you learn more!!
To me this just proves Science is way more mature than religion. Takes a bigger (person \ thing \ community??) to come out and say, we stuffed up, we've actually learnt more and have discovered we were wrong.
If science didn't evolve we'd still believe the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Rogor is clearly a creationist. He thinks this weakens the argument of the scientific community, when in fact it actually strengthens it.
(Smart people are willing to change their ideas)
rogorAug 2, 2010
The fact youve all colored me as a creationist shows what a bunch of assh**es you are.
vonsopasAug 2, 2010
Creationists not allowed!
Closed AccountAug 1, 2010
Once again, the headline character limitation forces an unfortunately ambiguous title. That and "Triceratops same as Torosaurus" would probably never go popular.
killozapAug 1, 2010
Triceratops was named first, so if anything has to go, it'd be Torosaurus
kwcarpenterAug 2, 2010
"Torosaurus never existed."
"Um, ok? I'd never heard of it anyway."
"Yeah well, it didn't exist."
"... alright."
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Dugg for knowing how scientific nomenclature works.
machinemessiahAug 2, 2010
I'll show those scientists who "never existed!" *shakes fist*
2wrongsAug 2, 2010
The original article says you're right:
"Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner."
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Yes, buried for false sensationalism.
diggyfreshAug 1, 2010
What you talkin' bout Willis?!!!
ludarAug 2, 2010
way to soon!
soc7Aug 1, 2010
Can't depend on anything in this world. Even the dang scientists keep changing their minds. /S
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I always hope that comments like these are trolls, cause the other option is even worse (people actually thinking that being rigid in your ideas and beliefs is a good thing).
Scientists are SUPPOSED to change their minds when confronted with evidence stating the contrary.
soc7Aug 2, 2010
I'm an adherent of the scientific method in case it makes ant difference to you. And I think the fossil record tells the tale. Lighten up.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Yeah, I know. Like I said, I saw the /S.
But actual bible thumpers think the same exact thing, which I suspect is why you are getting dugg down. Gotta dial the /s all the way to 11 because actual creationists are as ridiculous as our satire.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
soc7Aug 2, 2010
I'll stay scientifically serious on the science threads from now on. Point taken.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I never said you should. I just said I don't need to.
Closed AccountAug 1, 2010
You're right, because no dinosaurs ever existed. If dinosaurs existed, that would contradict the Bible, which doesn't even mention them once. /s
spookyttwsAug 2, 2010
OMG! How f**king awesome would the Bible be if it had dinosaurs in it! Can you imagine Jesus riding or fighting a dinosaur?
crazycorvidAug 2, 2010
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?40,file=16539,filename=jesus-dinosaur.jpg
spacemanspiff22Aug 2, 2010
...we're gonna need a bigger ark.
ROGU3WAV3Aug 2, 2010
Original Word Word Origin
תנין intensive from the same as (08565)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
tanniyn
Definition
1. dragon, serpent, sea monster
1. dragon or dinosaur
2. sea or river monster
3. serpent, venomous snake
Translated Words
KJV (28) - dragon, 21; sea monster, 1; serpent, 3; whale, 3;
NAS (14) - dragon, 2; monster, 3; sea monster, 1; sea monsters, 3; serpent, 3; serpents, 2; Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnfluxAug 2, 2010
Yes, clearly this is referring to dinosaurs:
"And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads." (Revelation 12:3)
And:
"Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. (Job 41:19-21)
/s
crunchydeluxeAug 2, 2010
@rocknog:
Take your anti-religious trolling elsewhere. f**k off.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Personally, I love the first amendment, and I wouldn't have it any other way. What's your f**king point?
crunchydeluxeAug 2, 2010
That this is a submission about a f**king dinosaur, and you see fit to segue into a rather childish anti-religious rant. The next time there's a submission about the LHC, I'll be sure to launch into a completely irrelevant anti-Obama diatribe.
I don't recall the first amendment covering douchebags OR trolls.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cartermillsAug 2, 2010
@Crunchy
Actually, the First Amendment covers everyone, but your exercising of your First Amendment rights certainly does not violate rocknog's.
luciddr34m3rAug 2, 2010
Is your /s about Christians not believing in dinosaurs? Because they do, and they are mentioned in the Bible. Have you seriously not seen all the stuff in the creationist museum?
If thats what you were going for, then I'll save someone the reply and say it myself.
"*woosh*"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
deusexmachina7Aug 2, 2010
I'd love to see you quote a verse on this one.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
@deusexmachina7 - http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
Unless you go into it with an open mind and the ability to compare two points of view objectively, there will be no point in following the link. It interprets passages from the Bible, much in the way that science interprets results for things they don't know yet.
magamiakoAug 2, 2010
@fortheworld:
Much like the rest of the bible, it's nothing but stories passed down from generation to generation, prior to the bible mostly being in an unwritten form. It's not entirely too difficult to assume that since we can find dinosaur bones today that they also found similar bones back in those times, and then came up with fantastic ideas of what these creatures actually were.
Your presumption is that the bible is a true book, and everything written in that book was an experience that someone had. If anything, it's likely to be a mix of stories: some real, some fake, and many that were exaggerated that were compiled together.
apokalypsenowAug 2, 2010
@fortheworld
The difference is that science follows evidence towards a conclusion, whereas apologetics starts with the conclusion they want and try to shoehorn reality into it.
luciddr34m3rAug 2, 2010
Really, does everyone think fundamental Christians don't believe in dinosaurs? Fortheworld linked to the passages I was thinking of exactly. It doesn't matter if you think those passages are talking about dinosaurs, because fundamental Christians believe they are about dinosaurs. All the fundamental Christians I know think dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together, they don't think dinosaurs didn't exist.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in science, but seriously I've never met a Christian that didn't believe dinosaurs existed, and I have met a LOT of fundamentalist Christians. Can someone explain this to me better, because I apparently don't fully understand the issue here.
rburtonAug 2, 2010
@LucidDr34m3r Unfortunately, there are some, certainly not most, but some fundamentalist Christians, that believe dinosaur bones were put into the ground by satan to confuse us and cause doubt. I know a few, even related to one. They are as sure of this "fact" as they are that the sun rises in the east.
luciddr34m3rAug 2, 2010
I have heard that theory from the absolute smallest minority of Christians ever. The creationist museum is full of dinosaurs, and they are extremely fundamentalist... Christians and wackos are non synonymous. Some people think dinosaurs are an alien race, they are wackos. People are talking about this like that is a mainstream Christian ideology, and as someone who grew up going to a Southern Baptist School, and Church (3 times a week at the least) who side much closer with agnostics now, I can say that is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm not sure how, but whenever I enter a debate with atheists, I always end up defending religious people, despite the fact that most of my young adult years were spent proving to myself how wrong they are. Christians not believing in dinosaurs? Please...
guntarioAug 2, 2010
The bible mentions them. Are you admitting to not having read the bible?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Book and verse, please?
guntarioAug 2, 2010
"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword. Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there. He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh. The lotus trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him. Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth, Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare.
(Job 40:15-24)
Take it as you want.
thejasonresnoAug 2, 2010
“Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God…” (Job 40:15-19).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sotoninAug 2, 2010
Neither of those quotes seem to describe a dinosaur in any way in my opinion. I think you guys are stretching for this one.
johnfluxAug 2, 2010
Interesting that he stopped the quote there. Job continues:
"Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. (Job 41:19-21)
A firebreathing .. dinosaur?
guntarioAug 2, 2010
Actually JohnFlux, you are misquoting the Bible, just like usual. Job actually describes *GASP* more than one thing! I mean, surely you noticed the difference in chapter numbers?
And why is it so far fetched that a creature like the Leviathan existed? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
studiopenguinAug 2, 2010
Depending on which Biblical scholars you're talking to (and the mood you catch them in), Behemoth and Leviathan were:
1. Dinosaurs,
2. Caricatures of a hippo and a crocodile (respectively), or
3. Angelic creatures.
The Bible is full of fanciful creatures like the Seraphim, Cherubim, Ezekiel's wheel, and so on. It seems extremely likely that Behemoth and Leviathan belong to this group of mythological beasts, as neither creature's description fully matches that of any known animal -- living or extinct. I think it's a huge stretch to say, "Dinosaurs? Oh yeah, they were talked about in the Ketuvim!"
derelictionAug 2, 2010
@Guntario When the various books of the bible were written there were no such things as "Chapters and Verses" as known to us, with the bible today. Those divisions were not added until the 13th century by Archbishop Langton (whom separated the text into various books and chapters) and William Whittington (whom assigned a verse number system).
The division in Job that you cite to make the argument that Job (or in reality, whomever the real author was) referred to two different creatures is both arbitrary and false. That division of chapters didn't exist in the original text.
guntarioAug 2, 2010
@ studiopenguin
You only need to look at it for yourself to see that it is a creature being described. The words are very plain and not some type of cryptic form of archaic writing.
@ dereliction
How does the fact that chapters weren't introduced until later nullify the fact that he's talking about two separate things? I feel kind of strange having to explain this to you, but he even gives them two names: Behemoth and Leviathan.
studiopenguinAug 2, 2010
@guntario: Which specific dinosaur are you thinking of that climbed mountains for food and breathed fire?
I'll reiterate a previous point: the cherubim are described as "having four faces: of a lion, an ox, an eagle, and a man. They are said to have the stature and hands of a man, the feet of a calf, and four wings." Do you believe this is also describing a literal creature which roamed the earth? If not, why do you believe cherubim to be mythological/angelic/metaphorical but the behemoth to have been literal?
guntarioAug 2, 2010
@ studiopenguin
The cherubim are angels. And I have no clue what the creature was besides the description here. There's no way of knowing until the remains are found. I do find it interesting that the word dragon is used numerous times throughout the bible though :)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rogersausagesAug 2, 2010
I have heard that the creature has been described as a hippo or a crocodile too. But, hippos and crocodiles do not have tails like a cedar.
Also yes, Cherubim are angels and as far as the bible says these creatures don't walk the Earth, it just shows how some don't read/study/understand the bible yet are quick to throw out the "absurdities".
sindexAug 2, 2010
"Angels are not myth"
Any credibility you had ended with this statement.
Besides, why would the author of Job, who knew the mind of God so well as to be able to put words into God and Satan's mouths, not know the names of the Dinosaurs even though God and Adam sat around and named them? Why wouldn't he just say "Check out the Apatosaurus! That thing is awesome! Also, there is no Brontosaurus."
You know why? Because it's all made up.
guntarioAug 2, 2010
@ sindex
He named both: Behemoth and Leviathan. You do realize that what you are asking would require the author to record what we call them today, right?
oxidaneAug 3, 2010
@guntario, does the bible actually use the word "dinosaur" (the english versions)? No? because if they're talking about other animals, they usually use their proper names (ass, ape, antelope, dog, etc.)
dinosaur? none.
apokalypsenowAug 3, 2010
@guntario
Behemoth and Leviathan are just two primordial beasts, one of the earth, and the other of the sea. There's also one of the sky, too: Ziz. Behemoth specifically was said to wander the invisible desert to the east of the Garden of Eden.
These are not dinosaurs. They're fiction.
guntarioAug 3, 2010
@ apokalysenow
"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword. Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there. He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh. The lotus trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him. Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth, Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare.
Do you have some other Bible?
guntarioAug 3, 2010
@ oxidane
The descriptions sound to me like dinosaurs. What do they sound like to you?
dukeonkledAug 17, 2010
"He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh." The behemoth is shorter than the lotus trees, and can hide in reeds and marsh. Not a large dinosaur, and probably some sort of alligator or crocodile judging by this sentence "Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth, Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare."
tablatronixAug 18, 2010
Sounds like a cow or a buffalo to me. Eats grass ( like an ox ), pierces his nose with a snare ? Yeah go try that with a dinosaur.
thejasonresnoAug 2, 2010
It doesn't mention the Cheetah either but Christians don't argue the Cheetah doesn't exist.
hamchidnaAug 2, 2010
You want to steal a mountain?!
deusexmachina7Aug 2, 2010
The difference between the Cheetah and dinosaurs is that carbon dating shows dinosaurs existed before the Earth was even created (according to the Bible). If you check the ages of various characters in the Bible and do the math, the Earth is about 6,000 years old.
thejasonresnoAug 2, 2010
My point: -----> here.
Your post: ---> here.
apokalypsenowAug 2, 2010
@deusexmachina7
Carbon dating doesn't work beyond about 60,000 years. Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Further, all dinosaur bones have been fossilized, meaning whatever Carbon-14 might have been in them was replaced by minerals. We use other radiometric techniques for objects this old.
guntarioAug 2, 2010
I've also seen carbon dating that showed a can of tuna was older than the earth. Why can nobody see the irony in a dating method that is unreliable for anything less than 25000 years?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
johnfluxAug 2, 2010
deusexmachina7, we use uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years, for dinosaurs.
Guntario, After just 60,000 years or so, the amount of carbon would be tiny. Thus you couldn't date a tuna back that far using carbon dating, even inaccurately.
mnementh2230Aug 2, 2010
@guntario
Carbon dating can't have done that - like Apok said, it only works out to 60,000 years.
Besides which, tuna is a sea mammal, and as such is subject to what is known as the "reservoir" effect, which is a known limitation of carbon dating (it doesn't work on marine life). We've known about that limitation for something like 40 years...
webchimp32Aug 7, 2010
@JohnFlux How does a half-life of a million years help if as ApokalypseNow pointed out the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?
basalcellbosskAug 2, 2010
The Bible says that the Earth is flat, is unmoving, that the sun revolves around it, and such things as insects have four legs and bats are birds. It also says that illness is caused by evil spirits and can be cured by animal sacrifice. The list of Bible stupidities is long and exhaustive. Only cretins would seek to find scientific data in this material.
If you think references to 'behemoth' and sea monsters are supportive of the knowledge of dinosaurs by the OT's iron age writers, then you are simply a deluded religious nut.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
No, it doesn't. There's no point in even debating this with you because you're unable to comprehend two separate, opposed, yet intrinsically entwined points of view at once.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrkev150Aug 2, 2010
The Bible does not say the world is flat. There are verses that state it as being a circle or a sphere in translation.
kamikazowAug 2, 2010
The bible says that the earth is a rectangle: http://bible.cc/revelation/7-1.htm
studiopenguinAug 2, 2010
@MrKev150: It couldn't possibly say the world is spherical, as there's famously no word in Hebrew for "sphere". When Isaiah describes the shape of the planet, he uses the word "chuwg", which is indeed a "circle". Several chapters earlier, though, Isaiah had described a spherical object as a "ball" ("duwr").
This may seem like a trivial distinction until we consider that in the book of Job, we read that the world can be "shaken from its edges," and that "the earth takes shape like clay under a seal." The book of Job is also describing a circle... but a flat one. When Biblical figures describe a "round earth", they're describing a round, flat object like a pancake.
jambyAug 2, 2010
@BasalCellBossk
You sir, are in the literal sense, ignorant in regards to what you speak of.
cheesepufflyAug 2, 2010
Some people say they were here and knocked out by the Flood.
sylxAug 2, 2010
I'm no "holy roller", but yes the Holy Bible does have dinosaurs a.k.a. behemoths.
Also! Every booklet, and the like, that comes packaged with video games or a new gadget is in fact a bible. Bible means book. It's possible to find such information by looking in a large and particular bible commonly referred as a Dictionary.
And just for one more fyi: UFOs are in the Holy Bible as well. They are called "Twisters."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalypsenowAug 2, 2010
@Sylx
Not "behemoths", but "Behemoth", a single gargantuan and unconquerable monster of the land, just as Leviathan was a gargantuan, fire-breathing, primal monster of the sea, and Ziz was the primal monster of the sky. Behemoth lived in an invisible desert east of the Garden of Eden.
dukeonkledAug 17, 2010
I thought it was funny.
thanakarAug 2, 2010
Actually it doesn't mention what animals were created in the beginning. Once again you are taking it too literally.
oxidaneAug 3, 2010
So then it's up to anyone's interpretation? Oh, but of course your interpretation is surely correct, eh? What if I interpret it to say that the bible is just a novel written by bored storytellers?
thanakarAug 6, 2010
Then you're be correct, it IS totally up to interpretation.
elementixAug 2, 2010
http://i38.tinypic.com/oqm9er.jpg
bbtwebAug 2, 2010
Just because the Bible does or doesn't mention dinosaurs doesn't mean they don't exist or that people who believe the Bible don't believe they exist. When did the Bible become the definitive history of Earth?? Science is doing a fine job of piecing the puzzle together about the dinosaurs. The Bible says that God created the universe, and that's all that's really important for people. The Bible is meant to guide the lives of people, who are God's most precious creation. Jesus states that pretty clearly on more than one occasion in the New Testament.
InfographicWrldAug 2, 2010
Thanks for breaking my heart.
itwasonlyajokeAug 2, 2010
But remember kids, science is still set in stone.
remeloxAug 2, 2010
That's what those creationists would like you to believe. Oh, and by the way, science is actually a process. It's like cooking. You perform science and you reach conclusions. Sometimes they are wrong, which is why it is great that other people can check out your recipe and try the same thing. Sometimes they find out your recipes is wrong, sometimes they find out that the recipe doesn't make the same thing every time.
itwasonlyajokeAug 2, 2010
Unfortunately, many scientists appear to take the mainstream beliefs and theories in science and view them as postulates.
malexAug 2, 2010
And are _you_ a scientist, Joke? Maybe you read a lot of scientific journals? Academic research?
Because otherwise, I remain skeptical that you would actually know what "many scientists" belief even it gored you in the ass with three horns.
itwasonlyajokeAug 2, 2010
And are _you_ a scientist, malex? Maybe you read a lot of scientific journals? Academic research?
Because otherwise, I remain skeptical that you would actually recognize what "many scientists" belief even it gored you in the ass with three horns.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
remeloxAug 3, 2010
I read a lot of scientific papers and I perform academic research. Many scientists do stick to their beliefs even when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, particularly in the soft sciences where testing is more difficult. However, I would say the majority of scientists that I know approach their work with a fairly open mind.
Perhaps it is because I work in astronomy where we keep getting surprised. I have talked to quite a few astronomers who are excited to present papers where their hypotheses were completely wrong. They are eager to share their findings even when they are unable to draw any usable conclusions from their data. They are not embarrassed when asked questions to shrug their shoulders and say, "I don't know."
nard3456Aug 2, 2010
...which is why they are changing what they previously thought.
dukeonkledAug 17, 2010
Whoever said that doesn't understand science.
sidioooAug 2, 2010
Are these the same douchebags that said Pluto wasn't a planet?
studiopenguinAug 2, 2010
Pluto isn't a planet. It has an irregular orbit, it's more than half ice, and it's smaller than several moons in our solar system (including Earth's). Pluto isn't even gravitationally dominant in its own orbit.
Pluto is a lifeless, frozen rock, it's not like we're hurting its feelings by reclassifying it into a group of similar objects.
thetxiAug 2, 2010
Oh, so now you're saying Pluto doesn't have feelings on top of all the other demeaning insults you keep heaping upon it?
You're just a callous bastard.
sealinkAug 5, 2010
Paleontologists aren't the same as astronomers.
Also, this is Jack Horner saying this. He's got some star power in the field. (Which, again, has nothing to do with astronomy)
brokemAug 2, 2010
wait.. so the blue ranger never existed?
phi01Aug 2, 2010
why is everyone mentioning the blue ranger?
hamchidnaAug 2, 2010
Kids these days...
phi01Aug 2, 2010
Yeah, everyone grew up watching American tv....
snapcaseAug 2, 2010
Because he had the Torosaurus Dinozord. Duh.
coachmcguirkAug 2, 2010
You hold your blasphemous tongue!
crunchydeluxeAug 2, 2010
Aww, damn. Billy always did get the shaft.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Hello class. Today's word is "fenestrated"
fe·nes·trat·ed/ˈfenəˌstrātid/Adjective
1. Provided with a window or windows.
2. Having perforations, apertures, or transparent areas.
bluesun420Aug 2, 2010
and the word "defenestrate" is even more fun:
verb
throw through or out of the window; "The rebels stormed the palace and defenestrated the President"
metamethodAug 2, 2010
bonus History Lesson:
The Second Defenestration of Prague
remeloxAug 2, 2010
Wasn't Prague considered the capitol of defenstrations?
feomatteo88Aug 2, 2010
I don't want to go on a rant, here, but America's foreign policy makes about as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam. I mean when a neo-conservative DEFENESTRATES it's like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sealinkAug 5, 2010
The holes in the bones themselves are called fenestrae.
leezusAug 6, 2010
Oh man, learning new words just isn't as good anymore without a sexy eastern European accent .
chrismgtisAug 2, 2010
Scientists make all sorts of far out ridiculous claims these days. I already know that.
malexAug 2, 2010
F**KING MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK
faffcatAug 14, 2010
They work by the divine grace of Jesus, it's that simple.
mrkev150Aug 2, 2010
Actually, for the most part, we do understand how magnetism works. However, there are aspects of magnetism down to a molecular level that still baffles scientists to this day.
So yeah, many scientists still say "MAGNETS! HOW DO THEY WORK!?!
tangytengAug 2, 2010
they're going to have to dub over the old Power Rangers footage...
alepennAug 2, 2010
i opened the comments just to find a power rangers reference. +1 to you, sir.
shediggsAug 2, 2010
You would think that the Blue Ranger, being the smart ranger, would have caught on to this a long time ago!
rumbeefAug 2, 2010
What's this? Triceratops is evolving?
jdh24Aug 2, 2010
Sensationalist headline. The triceratops DID exist, it's just called something else.
oirvineAug 2, 2010
More over, the triceratops will still exist. From the real article (not the blog s**t digg loves to link to) "Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner."
veni_vidi_viciAug 4, 2010
Headline should have read "Triceratops believed to be young form of a different species"
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Pokemon are real! Torosaurus is the evolved form of Triceratops!
tim04Aug 2, 2010
I f**king knew it! Show me where them starters at...
assassyn360Aug 2, 2010
Bulls**t! The animal was clearly depicted in Jurassic park and they did their research before making that movie!
j/k
anonymysteryAug 2, 2010
That's cool. Hey, you know what's even cooler than triceratops? Every other dinosaur that ever existed.
remeloxAug 2, 2010
Liar!
weirdo50Aug 2, 2010
I didn't expect that.
gregloireAug 2, 2010
Dugg for incredibly nerdy trolling.
thrakenAug 2, 2010
..just making sure someone said it.
thenorwegianAug 2, 2010
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo
khirzaskAug 7, 2010
FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
scabnabbitAug 2, 2010
"The duo say there is a clear transition from triceratops into torosaurus as the animals grow older. For example, the oldest specimens of triceratops show a marked thinning of the bone where torosaurus has holes, suggesting they are in the process of becoming fenestrated"
FENESTRATED? WtF?
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fenestrated
fen·es·trat·ed (fn-strtd) or fen·es·trate (fn-strt, f-nstrt)
adj.
Having fenestrae or windowlike openings.
jacaissieAug 2, 2010
Such as: "I think I gave your mom a new fenestration last night".
sageerrantAug 2, 2010
You installed a window for her? How nice.
kwcarpenterAug 2, 2010
Well, Pluto is still Pluto ... it just isn't a planet.
ingrridAug 2, 2010
If you enjoyed the word "fenestrated" then you'll really enjoy "to defenestrate"
kgtheway2bAug 21, 2010
I just think its nuts the things GREW HOLES in their skulls as they matured.
assassyn360Aug 2, 2010
Bulls**t! The animal was clearly depicted in Jurassic park and they did their research before making that movie! And the triceratops is an important member of the dinobots! So stay the hell away from my childhood scientists! You are f**king with s**t and will stink in the end.
treshnellAug 2, 2010
The raptors they called "velociraptors" were also clearly young Utahraptors. But no one would have been afraid of a raptor the size of a dog.
thehotcarlAug 2, 2010
How about these raptors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor
I would be afraid of those.
treshnellAug 2, 2010
Yeah, those are my favorite. And Raptor Red, a book written from the point of view of one, was a really fun read.
covenAug 2, 2010
Raptor Red was a fantastic read. I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who thought so!
magnesAug 2, 2010
And it didn't have feathers in the movie as it should.
webchimp32Aug 6, 2010
Actually about the time they were filming Jurrasic Park a new dinasaur was discovered call Utahraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/trivia?tr0754143
thehotcarlAug 2, 2010
How about these raptors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor
I would be afraid of those.
cosmicrAug 2, 2010
thanks for putting in j/k
janoo1989Aug 2, 2010
It was Alan Grant's favourite when he was a boy and when he saw it, the Triceratops was the most beautiful thing he's ever seen. You bastards, you bastards =(
jackoftherealmAug 2, 2010
everything I learned in childhood.............................
tokenshiAug 2, 2010
First Pluto, Then Karate Kid with JACKIE CHAN, now the Triceratops? STOP KILLING MY CHILDHOOD!
thanatosstAug 2, 2010
You forgot about transformers.
carstanAug 2, 2010
well it's named The Kung Fu Kid in Asia. they just call it Karate Kid iin the west because of nostalgia
dwtcAug 2, 2010
How did you miss Star Wars and Indiana Jones?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
The black power ranger's giant transformer thing was based on a lie!
dlan4327Aug 2, 2010
I DON'T WANNA TALK TO NO SCIENTIST, THEM MUTHAF**KAS LYING & GETTIN ME PISSED!
sreyanotfilcAug 2, 2010
I'm Brian Fellows!
apokalypsenowAug 2, 2010
What pissed me off about that song was that they were talking about well understood phenomena or examples of Littlewood's Law in action.
waisosrsAug 2, 2010
Fun Fact: The song was saying how that some phenomenon can appear to be like 'miracles' and science can take away that sense of mystery and magic. Read through the lyrics, it comes out quite clearly to me.
nereus90Aug 2, 2010
Science should take away that sense of mystery and magic. Just because we understand how something works doesn't make it any less wondrous.
slipperyottterAug 2, 2010
f**king Magnets, How Do They Work?
yO0411Aug 2, 2010
bullllllllls**t
stickyheadAug 2, 2010
Damn you science. That was my favorite dinosaur as a child.
alabamasucksAug 2, 2010
First Pluto isn't a planet, not the Triceratops never existed! Elementary school was full of lies
strfxAug 2, 2010
Should have gone to bible school to avoid that sort of disappointment!
protodonAug 2, 2010
They still exist they just have different names now which means nothing because without names they still are.
hivoltage815Aug 2, 2010
Now you sheeple will see that science is all lies and God, are heavenly father, is the only truth!
/s
dwtcAug 2, 2010
Don't forget to listen to Glenn Beck to find out how progressives are re-writing the history that you never learned right because of the Marxist teachers' unions!
/s
deserttripperAug 2, 2010
Columbus discovered America... Edison invented electricity... the Californa Missions were wonderful places where Indians and Spaniards peacefully coexisted...
Ain't revisionist history the best history?
pinchduckAug 2, 2010
No, YOU don't exist, John Scannella and Jack Horner. There, how do you like it?
-Triceratops and Brontosaurus
slipperyottterAug 2, 2010
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BRONTOSAURUS????
D:
slipperyottterAug 2, 2010
i quick google search over this subject revealed this
http://www.wisegeek.com/was-the-brontosaurus-a-real-dinosaur.htm
=[
pinchduckAug 2, 2010
Yes, but they say that Elvis is dead, too.
chaosprofessorAug 2, 2010
next they are gonna tell me that Petri isn't real either
iatethecrayonAug 2, 2010
Father said not to talk to lonnnnnnnnng necks!
l0nerAug 2, 2010
f**k You.
Sincerely,My Childhood
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
RRRRRRRRAWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!
hottlumpiazAug 2, 2010
Did I scare you??? Did I? Did I???
carstanAug 2, 2010
rawr means i love you in dinosaur
bracomadarAug 2, 2010
When I was your age, Pluto was a planet and Triceratops was a dinosaur. I don't often say this, but f**k YOU SCIENCE!
falldogAug 2, 2010
Why are we digging up this blog spam from blog spam? The original is a thousand times more educational, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.500-morphosaurs-how-shapeshifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us.html
crimoidAug 2, 2010
No doubt. From the original: "Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner." In other words - childhood memories are all safe.
tomacco79Aug 2, 2010
Then, later in life it becomes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slag_%28Transformers%29
kantenAug 2, 2010
Isn't Jack Horner the guy who said that there were lizard people?
hollowexAug 2, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Russell
kantenAug 2, 2010
Guess not. Though I swear he said something about "dino people" during interviews about Jurassic Park 4 (turned out well.)
djenna8Aug 2, 2010
He was also the kid who sat in a corner eating a Christmas pie
7king7kingAug 2, 2010
SantaClaus Never Existed either.
atroaciousAug 2, 2010
STFU I WON'T BELIEVE THIS S**T, AND PLUTO IS STILL A PLANET !!!
protodonAug 2, 2010
So they changed the name and told you in a dick-like fashion. Very scientific.
cheater2000Aug 2, 2010
Sounds like something a Christian group would say. :P
roddyrowdyAug 2, 2010
Does this mean that the Blue Power Ranger doesn't exist, either?
remeloxAug 2, 2010
"It was already known that triceratops skulls changed throughout their development, but not that the final result was a torosaurus. Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner"
zerocubedAug 2, 2010
Wait, so why the hell then does the article say that triceratops won't 'exist' anymore?
remeloxAug 3, 2010
I only says it in the title, which was made to be sensational.
misterchaseAug 2, 2010
Vilociraptors didn't look like we think they did from watching Jurassic Park and reading dinosaur books for children. They were covered head to toe with feathers. Essentially, the Jurassic period was one gigantic Sesame Street.
nickdbAug 2, 2010
The coolest Big Bird ever!!!!
wakkyweedAug 2, 2010
I guess it's possible. Look at these skulls:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nomad7674/191856472/
spemAug 2, 2010
At the Museum of the Rockies, where Horner works, they have the skulls of the Triceratops and Torosauras lined up next to each other by size. When you see the progression from smallest to largest, you also see the changes the article was highlighting (windows opening up in the skulls, the change of thickness, etc).
Here is a partial picture... I wish I could find a better one or a series so you could see what I am talking about:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/40xx/404x/4041_Bizarre_Dinosaurs-4_04700300.JPG
thatonekid393Aug 2, 2010
Props to nomad, for responding to a picture submitted 4 years ago (and only 7 hours after the new comment!)