-----------------------------
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 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Nov 13, 2005
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!


Hmm....ok...

Not so. Science allows for disproof and change


Perhaps the better word is tradition...

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'.


Not all faith *has* to be based with out proof...., i disagree with the definition...

on Nov 14, 2005
'Perhaps the better word is tradition... '
'Not all faith *has* to be based with out proof...., i disagree with the definition...'

So which word do you mean to use, what do you understand it to mean, and how does your definition differ from that found in the dictionary? I do hope this discussion isn't going to descend into a meaningless Clintonesque "It depends what your definition of the word 'is' is" debate!

So, rather than responding with just a couple of words and an ellipsis or a rhetorical question, let's have your argument in full, please!

P.S. Tell you what, let's keep it concrete. In this blog, you have put forward the hypothesis that there might be 'a marine crocodile with a dinosaur-like head and a fish-like tail that likely terrorized the Pacific Ocean 135 million years ago' living in an unusually well-monitored Scottish lake. So, what scientific evidence do you have to support your hypothesis? What evidence will you be looking for? And if your answer to either / both is 'none', what - other than 'faith' - causes you to put forward such a hypothesis?
on Nov 14, 2005
Lucas has got himself in over his head - again.

If you're going to defend your point of view Lucas, you'd better come prepared with facts. You keep making these claims and then you have nothing to back them up except for lame ass half-jokes and and bunch of etceteras.

This is why you piss people off. You write these articles that you say are 'fact' when they're really not, and when we point them out you go all wishy washy on us and slink off without really saying anything. If you really believe in what you're writing, then you should be prepared to back it up with evidence...in this case, scientific evidence, NOT faith. When you fail to do that, people see your articles as an attention getting ploy and they don't take you seriously.

Haven't you ever wondered why a lot of your articles don't get any responses? Could the reason I just gave you be why?
on Nov 14, 2005
What evidence will you be looking for? And if your answer to either / both is 'none', what - other than 'faith' - causes you to put forward such a hypothesis?


I have "Faith" that there is something bigger out there, that science isn't *the* way... that at times, it fails, that...perhaps there was, like i said, a prehistoric fish monster that terrorized the ocean, could this be it? perhaps...perhaps i am wrong... i'll admit that...

Lucas has got himself in over his head - again.


Water? What water?


You write these articles that you say are 'fact' when they're really not, and when we point them out you go all wishy washy on us and slink off without really saying anything.


Well, in this case, my case fell through... so......

Haven't you ever wondered why a lot of your articles don't get any responses? Could the reason I just gave you be why?


Oh I know why... but the question is... "Do I care anymore?" The answer....NO...

Of COURSE Lucas understands what science is, he summed it up precisely with two words, an 'etc.' and a series of elipses!


- Ha! Ha!

Liked the song though...catchy tune... *hums along*

Believe me...

But seriously though, I'm not all "fun and fantasy" as i may seem... I do realize that the world is the world... that if you don't know what you are doing, yer screwed. That you need to be prepared. I'm not stupid. I just think slighlty differently then the average joe.... so to speak... I think in what ifs. But, deal with reality. At times, yes, i come out with ideas. They arn't to be discussed with facts. (Like this one) just take a moment and think, what if... ya know?

As for the, backing down... ehh, i just figured why bother when FC has the upper hand...


FC:

Faith, in my terms doesn't mean: (the one in bold)

faith n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. A set of principles or beliefs.

Hmmm, let me think about this... i suddenly lost my train of thought...


--Lucas
on Nov 14, 2005
Well, in this case, my case fell through... so......


Yeah, because you posted something that had little factual basis and because you either didn't think it through BEFORE you posted it or...well, if you're smart like you say you are the alternative shouldn't even come into play. I mean, you didn't actually BELIEVE your theory...did you?
on Nov 14, 2005
Methinks you missed the train altogether on this one, dearie


he's still at the station trying to buy his ticket...

I've spent the morning singing that song too!!! GRRR!
on Nov 14, 2005
Yeah, because you posted something that had little factual basis and because you either didn't think it through BEFORE you posted it or...well, if you're smart like you say you are the alternative shouldn't even come into play. I mean, you didn't actually BELIEVE your theory...did you?


Ehh, yes/no... It was 'what if' .... but now... i just feel like a class dunce...

chuckles~Methinks you missed the train altogether on this one, dearie.And gah! @ you, i cannot get that stupid song out of my head now and it's all your fault.


Je ? Amende bonne, je devine que j'ai une partie dans la chanson.

(think I butchered ze parle vous francais... Never was my best area)

Any way....


he's still at the station trying to buy his ticket...I've spent the morning singing that song too!!! GRRR!


Ha ha! teaches you to refute my theory...


Right, anyway... why does the song "Dream a little.." come to mind as a 'back up them song?


LW, I consider myself average, at best... I highly doubt that i would ever become a "nuclear physicist" or any thing..."great'...I'm just gonna be me... whether that ends up being... a teacher, football player, actor, sports journalist (TV, not newspaper...hopefully), or a lazy SOB.... if it "floats my boat"................


--Lucas
on Nov 14, 2005
Furry, you are to be commended for your patience. Or are you perhaps just stroking your own ego in order to amaze yourself with your superior intelligence?

Thanks LW. I sincerely hope it's the former rather than the latter, although I wouldn't feel comfortable claiming there was no ego involved. However, I am genuinely concerned at the general level of misunderstanding as to what science is. Lucas places himself (obliquely, mind you) above and beyond 'mere' science - yet I have no doubt that he enjoys the benefits of its advances, from the ballpoint pen to air travel. That this country (Australia) has significantly more professional astrologers than astronomers I find, if not alarming, certainly rather depressing. So, I think / hope it is this concern for the standing of science, plus faith (ha ha) in the idea that nobody is irredeemable - no Lucas, not even you! - that causes me to keep plugging away.

'You write these articles that you say are 'fact' when they're really not, and when we point them out you go all wishy washy on us and slink off without really saying anything.'

Spot on, DG. Lucas, this single comment really is your path to a degree of enlightenment / self-awareness. (DG, do you get that feeling we've been here before? )

'I think in what ifs. But, deal with reality. At times, yes, i come out with ideas. They arn't to be discussed with facts. (Like this one) just take a moment and think, what if... ya know?'

Lucas, Lucas, Lucas ... please just think about this for a moment. Asking 'What if?' on one hand, and science on the other, are not mutually exclusive - indeed, the former often drives the latter. Pick a handful of the giants of science (hey, I'm a poet!) at random - let's say Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein. Every single one of them came out with what were, for their times, extraordinarily bold 'what ifs'. But then - and here's the crucial difference - they TESTED them to see if they held water. i.e. 'Ideas' and 'What ifs', if they relate to the world around us, MUST be discussed with reference to the facts supplied by empirical evidence, or they never become anything other than pure navel-gazing.

'As for the, backing down... ehh, i just figured why bother when FC has the upper hand... '

Well, I come from British stock, and was brought up to try and accept 'defeat' openly, and with dignity. (Yes, I know that sounds ominously like Sir Peter, and yes, I am being semi-facetious at least!)

'Ha ha! teaches you to refute my theory...'

Don't diss science if you are prepared to use its language, Lucas!

And finally ...

'The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades'

Am I right in thinking that was by Timbuk-3? I saw them once, a lifetime ago, at the Manchester International, supporting - if I remember rightly - one of the greatest bands I have ever seen in my life, Prefab Sprout. Happy days ...

on Nov 14, 2005
Spot on, DG. Lucas, this single comment really is your path to a degree of enlightenment / self-awareness. (DG, do you get that feeling we've been here before? )


Now, now...

Don't diss science if you are prepared to use its language, Lucas!


I'm not dissing anything...

Well, I come from British stock, and was brought up to try and accept 'defeat' openly, and with dignity. (Yes, I know that sounds ominously like Sir Peter, and yes, I am being semi-facetious at least!)


SPM!? You sure he ain't your split personality?

Dignity? Openly? I concede that my arguement was...illogical... but, perhaps i need to better organize it... cause i am not ruling science out, merely separating it... (IMO) ... that science *could* discover other things... but, those it can't, that faith is required that you are faithful to the idea that it will be discovered/confirmed... or perhaps loyalty is the right term?

Lucas, Lucas, Lucas ... please just think about this for a moment. Asking 'What if?' on one hand, and science on the other, are not mutually exclusive - indeed, the former often drives the latter. Pick a handful of the giants of science (hey, I'm a poet!) at random - let's say Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein. Every single one of them came out with what were, for their times, extraordinarily bold 'what ifs'. But then - and here's the crucial difference - they TESTED them to see if they held water. i.e. 'Ideas' and 'What ifs', if they relate to the world around us, MUST be discussed with reference to the facts supplied by empirical evidence, or they never become anything other than pure navel-gazing


What if = idea, Science = testing tool ? (Did i get at least 9/10?)


-Anyway, I concede that I flooped up... And will "go down in burning anti-glory"....


Best Regards, Lucas



on Nov 14, 2005
Spot on, DG. Lucas, this single comment really is your path to a degree of enlightenment / self-awareness. (DG, do you get that feeling we've been here before? )


Yeah. It get deja vue every time I talk to Lucas.
on Nov 14, 2005
'What if = idea, Science = testing tool ? (Did i get at least 9/10?)'

Hmm, not bad. But as I said earlier:
'With science, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating''

So ... let's wait and see if you put this into practice; if and when we (me, Dharmagrl, Little Whip et al) observe a change, THEN we will dish out the marks!
on Nov 14, 2005
Yeah. It get deja vue every time I talk to Lucas


Ha, ha...

So ... let's wait and see if you put this into practice; if and when we (me, Dharmagrl, Little Whip et al) observe a change, THEN we will dish out the marks!


*raises eyebrows... * right...

Well....let me go over this... the sustanence in science is in the process.....and the fact that at the moment, the process will always be reliable in finding out new things, whether or not it is the intended thing... out of an experiment......?


(I'm seriously not this stupid... I just am not the best at science...or...well, never mind...)


Best Regards, Lucas




on Nov 14, 2005
'Well....let me go over this... the sustanence in science is in the process.....and the fact that at the moment, the process will always be reliable in finding out new things, whether or not it is the intended thing... out of an experiment......?'


As succinctly as I can, the way I would probably express this is as follows:

1. Any hypothesis that predicts the nature of the world around us should be tested empirically.
2. The observations or results arising will either comply with the predictions of the hypothesis or not.
3. If the results comply with the hypothesis, then they become part of a body of evidence in support of it.
4. If they do not, then the hypothesis must either be amended to accommodate the results observed or scrapped altogether.

However:

5. The scientific method must be rigorous. Results obtained from a flawed experimental design may reflect on the design, not the hypothesis. (So yes, 'the process will always be reliable' IF it is properly applied.)
on Nov 14, 2005
Dharma was here.

(I was going to say something about hamsters and wheels and spontaneous combustion but it wasn't very nice, so I won't say anything at all. except this. what i just said, i mean)
on Nov 14, 2005
Dharma was here.


Well o'course....why not?

(I was going to say something about hamsters and wheels and spontaneous combustion but it wasn't very nice, so I won't say anything at all. except this. what i just said, i mean)


Come on, say it....


Best Regards, Lucas
4 Pages1 2 3 4