-----------------------------
Published on November 11, 2005 By ----- In Misc
Is it me, or does this creature sound kind of like the "loch Ness" monster so infamously known? Just wonderin...

-Lucas




[B]Scientists reveal prehistoric terror


(CNN) -- Scientists say they have discovered the intact fossilized skull of a marine crocodile with a dinosaur-like head and a fish-like tail that likely terrorized the Pacific Ocean 135 million years ago.

The head of the expedition that found the specimen has dubbed it "Godzilla."

The fossil was discovered in 1996 in the Patagonia region of Argentina and researchers spent years uncovering the skull and analyzing their find. They published their work Thursday in the journal Science.

Zulma Gasparini, paleozoology professor at Argentina's Universidad Nacional de La Plata, said the fierce-looking animal probably terrorized creatures in the Pacific Ocean in the late Jurassic era, just as the film monster Godzilla frightened the people of Tokyo in the movies.

"We are calling him the 'chico malo' -- 'bad boy'" of the ocean, she said.

Report co-author Diego Pol of Ohio State University said "Godzilla," whose scientific name is Dakosaurus andiniensis, had a short, high snout and large, jagged teeth for biting and cutting prey.

He said this was surprising, because other marine crocodiles have long, thin snouts and many smaller teeth.

But Pol said "Godzilla" was a top ocean predator and preyed much like the dinosaurs of its era.

He said it was probably about 12 feet long and had four paddle-like limbs instead of the legs of today's crocodiles.

The National Geographic Society and Argentina's National Council of Scientific and Technical Research funded the research.





Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Nov 12, 2005
You didn't mention being illogical at all before, Lucas. You simply said that you 'challenge things at times' which is an entirely different thing - and to be encouraged, as long as you do so by logical or rational means.


Sorry, its a bad habit, i say things that *I* know what i mean, but others do not...





on Nov 12, 2005
I actually thought the digital rendering looked more like the prototype design for the "Aliens" monster.

Not that this relates to the previous discussion. Just a kind of art coincidentally imitating life kind of oberservation. Unless the digital designers were influenced by the movie...
on Nov 12, 2005
actually thought the digital rendering looked more like the prototype design for the "Aliens" monster.Not that this relates to the previous discussion. Just a kind of art coincidentally imitating life kind of oberservation. Unless the digital designers were influenced by the movie...


on Nov 12, 2005
actually thought the digital rendering looked more like the prototype design for the "Aliens" monster.Not that this relates to the previous discussion. Just a kind of art coincidentally imitating life kind of oberservation. Unless the digital designers were influenced by the movie...


Hmmm

why? becuase your argument doesn't hold water now that Furry and I have poked holes in it?


You know what, Perhaps i am wrong, I don't know... I did make a "bloated" statement... I apologize for that... I still stand the comment about the certainty of science...

on Nov 12, 2005
'I still stand the comment about the certainty of science...'
Fair enough, science is an ongoing process - but that's no excuse for resorting to unscientific flights of fancy, is it?
on Nov 13, 2005
Fair enough, science is an ongoing process - but that's no excuse for resorting to unscientific flights of fancy, is it?


Ehhh, Galileo himself went on sort of a "unscientific" flight at first... then he did base scientific proof on his "crazy ideas".... so... some times...and sometimes not... just depends...science also includes faith, and the "big leap".....


--Lucas
on Nov 13, 2005
'Ehhh, Galileo himself went on sort of a "unscientific" flight at first... then he did base scientific proof on his "crazy ideas".... so... some times...and sometimes not... just depends...science also includes faith, and the "big leap".....'


There's only one 'big leap' in evidence here, and it's not Galileo making it ...

Lucas, Galileo was anything but 'unscientific'! And he most certainly did not 'base scientific proof on his "crazy ideas".....' - rather, he formulated a hypothesis, tested it, and drew conclusions on the basis of his findings. That's exactly how science works. At risk of repeating myself, if Galileo's ideas were considered 'crazy', it is because they ran contrary to the teaching of the church, not the rules of science.

Yes, there is room for original thinking (if that’s what you are trying to say) on the part of the individual in formulating the hypothesis in the first place. However, this is not 'unscientific' - such ideas never enter the scientific canon unless they are subsequently subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Your biggest faux pas is to claim that 'some times … science also includes faith'. This is fundamentally wrong, and suggests strongly that you really don’t understand on a basic level what science is. This understanding is vital if we are to differentiate science from pseudoscience, psychobabble, snake oil and personal peccadillo.

Perhaps the most significant feature of science is that it is obliged to accept the results of its investigations - even if individual scientists, on occasion, find these results unsatisfying on a personal level. e.g. Think of Einstein’s famous ‘God doesn't play dice with the universe’, or Schrodinger’s ‘I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it’, both expressing personal dissatisfaction with the probability wave interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, science must accept such findings, unless and until evidence comes along to displace them. This is science’s great strength, and makes it inherently more objective than any other form of enquiry about the world around us.

Lucas, you are only one of a significant and apparently increasing number of people in this day and age who lack the basic understanding of what science is. I for one find this trend very disturbing, for without it, we have reduced means of rejecting what should be obviously seen as total rubbish, like this (see link):

http://www.spiritualenergy.com.au/general/pellowah_healing.htm

on Nov 13, 2005
Fair enough, science is an ongoing process - but that's no excuse for resorting to unscientific flights of fancy, is it?


But it makes for great legends!
on Nov 13, 2005
'But it makes for great legends!'

Absolutely! (Not to mention funding the lifestyles of spoon-benders, aura massagers and tea-leaf readers the world over!)
on Nov 13, 2005
Fair enough, science is an ongoing process - but that's no excuse for resorting to unscientific flights of fancy, is it?


But it makes for great legends!
on Nov 13, 2005
Wow! A time loop!
on Nov 13, 2005
Your biggest faux pas is to claim that 'some times … science also includes faith'. This is fundamentally wrong, and suggests strongly that you really don’t understand on a basic level what science is. This understanding is vital if we are to differentiate science from pseudoscience, psychobabble, snake oil and personal peccadillo.


Ehh, I disagree with you on this.

Any science includes faith, faith in that its process will continue as it is... un hindered. At times, such thinking can lead to "scientific arrogance" in that "science" is the only way...

But it makes for great legends




what science is


Hypothesis, test, etc...

Faith in that what science has proven is true.... that things are the way they are.... Hmmm?


on Nov 13, 2005
Absolutely! (Not to mention funding the lifestyles of spoon-benders, aura massagers and tea-leaf readers the world over!)


Not necessarily...
on Nov 13, 2005
'Not necessarily...'


Yes, necessarily. The faith (I am loathe to say gullibility) of those who pay for these 'services' is the only thing between the practitioners and poverty. Whatever there may be in what they do, there is no science in it.

This is my whole point, Lucas!
on Nov 13, 2005
'Any science includes faith, faith in that its process will continue as it is...'


I imagine you must mean one of two things by this:

1) 'Faith' that scientific findings will be unchanged.
Not so. Science allows for disproof and change.

2) 'Faith' in scientific method.
Misuse of the word 'faith'. Definition: 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.' i.e. Faith and science are mutually exclusive. With science, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'.

Thus, whichever you meant, your argument holds no water. Like I said, you obviously misunderstand what science IS.
4 Pages1 2 3 4