NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece


"For all its appearance as a ferocious predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken, researchers have found."

What do you think the creationists are going to say about that???

Another nail in their coffin????

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece


"For all its appearance as a ferocious predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken, researchers have found."

What do you think the creationists are going to say about that???

Another nail in their coffin????

Tastes like chicken eh? I say lets bring them back and solve the worlds food shortages. Let them loose on some poor starving village. You figure the T-Rex would manage to eat half the villagers before the other half was able to bring it down and eat it. World hunger solved. ;)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece


"For all its appearance as a ferocious predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken, researchers have found."

What do you think the creationists are going to say about that???

Another nail in their coffin????

"Owur Gawd is a eefisheeant Gawd! When He Maade th' Chicken and th' T-Rex, loooah those six Thowsand Yeers Agoooah, He din't Neeed to Use no diff'r'nt Dee Enn Aay! Nosir! He done Did it Just As He Pleased! You'd best Buhleeeeeeeve It!"

In other words, why would they let this, or anything else, sway them?

... Is there anything scientists couldn't find regarding dinosaurs?

"Diplodocus actually a cuboid"
"Velociraptors made of prehistoric marmite"

Well at least they are finding things.
They have faith within reason.
Some creationists have faith without reason.

chickens dont have teeth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece


"For all its appearance as a ferocious predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken, researchers have found."

What do you think the creationists are going to say about that???

Another nail in their coffin????

That first line--and the title of this thread--shows that scientists need much better PR. That's not what the discovery was saying at all.

All it said is that the Tyrannosaurus Rex was demonstrated to be an evolutionary ancestor of the chicken and other similar birds, not that it was a giant chicken in and of itself. It's just confirmation of a hypothesis already formed involving birds being the evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs. Jesus Christ people...learn to read...

That first line--and the title of this thread--shows that scientists need much better PR. That's not what the discovery was saying at all.

All it said is that the Tyrannosaurus Rex was demonstrated to be an evolutionary ancestor of the chicken and other similar birds, not that it was a giant chicken in and of itself. It's just confirmation of a hypothesis already formed involving birds being the evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs. Jesus Christ people...learn to read...

Good pointer. But please, tell me you didn't take the qouted sentence to be a literal statement.

chickens dont have teeth.

but back in the day, they did. Big teeth too. lol

Creating the world was hard work, God got hungry and created gigantic chickens to eat, we found the buried leftovers.

How long until we get horror movies about gigantic chickens?

but back in the day, they did. Big teeth too. lol

i look forward to the day they make tyranosaurus vat meat. tastes like chicken only toothier.

So I guess T-rex tasted like...never mind.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece


"For all its appearance as a ferocious predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken, researchers have found."

What do you think the creationists are going to say about that???

Another nail in their coffin????

Is it just me or has this been known for a few decades ?

Is it just me or has this been known for a few decades ?

its been assumed. the new bit is that someone found actual soft tissue that could be tested to see if it is true or not.

It's been suspected for a decade at least. It's only the last couple of years that they have been able to find things to confirm it. But a lot of paleos still argue that dinosaurs did not evolve into birds.
They have cognitive dissonance.

Good pointer. But please, tell me you didn't take the qouted sentence to be a literal statement.

Of course not. My statement was more directed towards those who did.

The problem is that the article is written to suggest that's what the scientists actually said. It's a stupid way to write a scientific article, especially since most people who casually glance at these articles aren't going to read them in detail, and they'll see a sentence like that and think all sorts of crazy things. Hell, just look at the comments on the article.

It's things like this that cause the serious misunderstanding of science as a whole in American society.

This made me laugh: "Aren't humans 70% the same as bananas "

What else is new? The fact that birds share common ancestors with dinosaurs, or even evolved out of dinosaurs, has been known since the 70s at the least.

Good point. But the point of the thread is what do you think the creationists will invent to counter the new findings????

Seen this one???

"Dinosaurs were thick headed while chickens are thin brained." LOL

Good point. But the point of the thread is what do you think the creationists will invent to counter the new findings????

My point is they probably won't bother. Ken Ham may come up with something . . .

This would have been news back in the late 90's. Most paleontologists now believe that birds evolved from small meat-eating dinosaurs. There's still debate, yes, but in the sense that there is still debate over evolution or global warming, I think. Most of the scientific community has come to the conclusion which the evidence supports.

Creationists, of course, continue their unending breach with reality.:D

Since when does evoloution disprove creationism? You CAN believe in both. (I still say Evoloution= Theory proclaimed as fact. But that's just me.)

Evolution rules out 6-day Biblical Creationism. I suppose it theoretically allows for intelligent design (aka Creationism for weasles and wimps), but there is no evidence for intelligent design.

And of course there is the question no one ever asks: who made the designer?:eek:

Next I suppose you'll be calling a round Earth a "theory.":rolleyes:

chickens dont have teeth.

Actually chickens a born with a tooth that they use to break open their shells.

so it appears dinosaurs actually died out because time traveling scientists like poached egg that much.

Good point. But the point of the thread is what do you think the creationists will invent to counter the new findings????

the rather shaky evidence?

Actually chickens a born with a tooth that they use to break open their shells.

The egg tooth is not a tooth. You can tell because it grows out of the top of the beak, which is not a place teeth normally grow. (Also you can tell because it's made out of keratin.)

Since when does evoloution disprove creationism? You CAN believe in both. (I still say Evoloution= Theory proclaimed as fact. But that's just me.)

Only because you don't know what theory means in a scientific sense. Or fact, for that matter.

its been assumed. the new bit is that someone found actual soft tissue that could be tested to see if it is true or not.

It wasn't soft tissue. What it was is difficult to explain, but it wasn't soft tissue.

How the mighty hath fallen.
And now, no legs, no freeranging, and lotsa hormones. What a travesty.

As far as what creationists might posit, how 'bout this?
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/darwin.php?did=011
Probably not this.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/04/24/dinosaur-bird.html

Good point. But the point of the thread is what do you think the creationists will invent to counter the new findings????

These aren't new findings people have know about this for years, it is just The Times being like the typical media "We need a stroy, just repeat some old story". Thus threre is no need for hard core literal creationists to come up with any new arguments as these findings and the process on how they changed is nothing new.

chickens dont have teeth.

Um...

Chickens, or rather chicks, do have an egg tooth....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece


"For all its appearance as a ferocious predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken, researchers have found."

What do you think the creationists are going to say about that???

Another nail in their coffin????

Nice flamebait USOA.

As for this creationist, I am going to say....

WHO CARES!!!

It wasn't soft tissue. What it was is difficult to explain, but it wasn't soft tissue.

i thought it was some kind of collagen.

but anyway the point is that its PROOF. not conclusive but far more than has been had in the past. thats why this is news.

Um...

Chickens, or rather chicks, do have an egg tooth....

compare it to a t-rex tooth. its a LOOOOOONG road of evolution to go from t-rex to chicken.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece


"For all its appearance as a ferocious predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken, researchers have found."

What do you think the creationists are going to say about that???

Another nail in their coffin????

Well if the T-Rex was a Chicken, then it proves that dinosaurs and men lived side by side, because the earth is only 6000 yrs old!. Duh. ;)

Well if the T-Rex was a Chicken, then it proves that dinosaurs and men lived side by side, because the earth is only 6000 yrs old!. Duh. ;)Interesting Location ya have there, you NRL entity :p

Interesting Location ya have there, you NRL entity :p

NRL? Don't use terms which confuse me!

NRL? Don't use terms which confuse me!

You said something about not dating anyone here (bafflingly, even Amarenthe) because of an IRL interest ....

You said something about not dating anyone here (bafflingly, even Amarenthe) because of an IRL interest ....

Well, even if there was no IRL interest, I think Amarenthe is taken, and far away. As for the other ladies, they are really just men.

As for the other ladies, they are really just men.
/thread

Tastes like chicken eh? I say lets bring them back and solve the worlds food shortages. Let them loose on some poor starving village. You figure the T-Rex would manage to eat half the villagers before the other half was able to bring it down and eat it. World hunger solved. ;)

ahahaha! Brilliant!

T. Rex was a chicken? They were also one of the best bands of the '70s.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tcbm1kaAU-k

compare it to a t-rex tooth. its a LOOOOOONG road of evolution to go from t-rex to chicken.

Yes, but look at the breastbones (wishbone) between the two, and the pelvises, and the tilt of the pelvises.

And check out Archeopteryx.

Yes, but look at the breastbones (wishbone) between the two, and the pelvises, and the tilt of the pelvises.

And check out Archeopteryx.

Tyrannosaurus doesn't actually have a retrograde pelvis, so looking at the pelvis won't do much.

but back in the day, they did. Big teeth too. lol

Actually, that's true. Early full-fledged birds had actual teeth. The beak is really just an adaption with the mucous membranes.

compare it to a t-rex tooth. its a LOOOOOONG road of evolution to go from t-rex to chicken.

As I said, early birds had teeth.

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/hesper.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece


"For all its appearance as a ferocious predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken, researchers have found."

What do you think the creationists are going to say about that???

Another nail in their coffin????

We say fine... T-Rex = chicken's cousin...whoop-di-doo.

As per the coffin part...even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God isn't real (good luck with that)...there will be some Souther preacher who'll keep preachin'.

Chickens, while not possessing any teeth beyond the egg tooth, most certainly do have the GENES for teeth. They're just turned off.

We should be thankful chickens don't have teeth.

T-REX WAS A CHICKEN!!!
uh.. HE WAS A DINO-CHICKEN
actually he was just a DINO
but he was still T-REX!!!!
T-REX!!!!
T-REX!!!!
and the T-Rex comes in the niiiiiight!

Chickens, while not possessing any teeth beyond the egg tooth, most certainly do have the GENES for teeth. They're just turned off.

The egg tooth is not a tooth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_tooth)