http://www.msnbc.com/news/634804.asp

Eggs hold babies of giant dinosaurs     Scientists trace fossils of unborn to titanosaurs that roamed Argentina 80 million years ago An artist's rendering from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County shows a cutaway of a dinosaur egg with a baby titanosaur within, as it might have looked 80 million years ago. The clutch of eggs was found in what is now the Patagonia region of Argentina. ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 —  In a nesting area once used by hundreds of generations of dinosaurs, researchers have found a clutch of unhatched babies that come from the last and most massive family of long-necked, plant-eating sauropods.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Answers

yep those "artists renditions" sure are hard and fast proof....top notch evolution evidence!

CEEP it up....

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001

The rest of the story for the "true believers" who can't understand that it was their God who put the entire mechanism of Evolution into place. Those who do understand that can also understand that there is on conflict between Science and Evolution only between Science and the "Established Religions" who preach 100% belief in a book written by men and subject to interpretation. Luckily, such types are few.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001

Isn't that amazing? They have the Eggs and the "babys" found inside were intact. And how many do they have. Baaaaad news for the LittleBrains and the believers in the 6,000 year universe. No human foot prints from the era were found (probably because the Debbilutionists advocates couldn't get there in time to plant another fraud).

“We have found hundreds of nests” in an area known as Auca Mahuida, said Chiappe. “Sauropods gathered in great numbers — by the hundreds of thousands — to nest at this site. They returned to this site time after time.”

Chiappe said the eggs were about the size of softballs, and the six baby dinos analyzed were about a foot long. Fossil fragments of adults from the same species, found nearby, suggest that when fully grown the babies would have been about 50 feet (15 meters) long.

The six baby dinos have the most complete skulls of any titanosaur yet discovered, a fact that Chiappe called ironic.

“The best preserved skulls of this large group of long- necked dinosaurs come from embryonic remains, which are among the rarest of all dinosaur fossils,” he said.

Lawrence Witmer, a dinosaur researcher at Ohio University, said the Chiappe discovery “is truly remarkable” and will contribute important new understanding about dinosaurs.

“This is important,” said Witmer. “It tells us about the growth and development of dinosaurs, ... a key element of biology and one that is sorely missing from dinosaur studies.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001

What in the world are you ranting about, Usher? There's no doubt as to the existence of dinosaurs. What I dispute is the "fact" that they lived millions of years ago.

Carbon-14 dating is notoriously inaccurate. Tissues from presently living organisms have been carbon-dated as being 50,000 years old. A blanket dating from the War between the States (1861-1865) was once dated as being 500,000 years old. Hundreds of examples of such glaring inaccuracies exist.

If that's reliable science, then so are alchemy and tarot cards.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

You are totally ignorant of how carbon dating works. If an error was made on a sample from the 1860s that is called experimental error. A rational person who understands how carbon dating works would want to see 10 runs on the same sample and then compare results.

Carbon Dating has established that these eggs and embryos are millions of years old.

What have you got to PROVE they are not? YOUR BELIEFS??

Give it a rest and understand you are burying yourself with every post on this subject. You can't find a legitimate source to back up your claims that have not been exposed by Skeptics time after time.

The difference between Science which exposed Piltdown Man and YOU is that Science will admit when ERROR has been found. You and all the rest of the "believers" merely choose to ignore your errors and truck on.

And when you post that you will have the last laugh, know this: "Judge NOT lest Ye be Judged".

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

The 'funny' thing about it is, that you have no idea how much I know about carbon dating, or how much I know about anything else, for that matter. I haven't observed you looking over my shoulder as I read, taking inventory of how much time I spend with which subject; which courses I might have taken in school. Which people with whom I might keep contact, who might just be eminently qualified to speak on such subjects. You know nothing of this.

What you do, is to call anyone who disagrees with evolutionary theory, and the questionable processes by which people try to support it, "ignorant". That is your main weapon in the debate, it appears; not very scientific.

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

Which people with whom I might keep contact, who might just be eminently qualified to speak on such subjects. You know nothing of this.
HARDLY MATTERS. ABOVE YOU START WITH A "SNIPE" AT A "ILLUSTRATION" BECAUSE READING THE ARTICLE WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT THERE WASN'T ONE EGG BUT MANY. THE EMBRYOES ARE THERE TO SEE. AGAIN AND AGAIN, THE LITERALISTS WON'T **SEE WHAT IS THERE**.

YOU AND ALL YOUR BUDDIES IN IGNORANCE ARE LOSING. AND WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. YOU LOST LONG AGO IN THE HALLS OF SCIENCE WHERE YOUR CLAP TRAP WAS FINISHED WITH WILBERFORCE 140 YEARS AGO. YOU JUST REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE NEWS.

YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE A RAPIDLY DIMINISHING MINORITY OF "BELIEVERS" FIGHTING A REAR GUARD ACTION.

ALL THE NOISE, ALL THE BLEATINGS DON'T MATTER TO SCIENTISTS. THE FEW WORKERS IN SCIENCE YOU RECRUIT DO NOT MATTER VS. THE MILLIONS OF WORKING SCIENTISTS WHO KNOW THAT EVOLUTION AS A WORKING THEORY IS VALID.

NOTE THE "WORKING THEORY", NOT "BELIEF" LIKE YOURS, NOT "RELIGION" AS YOURS. "WORKING THEORY".

YOU HAVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT "YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW" TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL FACTS.

YOU ARE THE CLASSIC DEMONSTRATION OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST WHO "KNOWS EVERYTHING HE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THE BIBLE AND LITTLE OF ANYTHING ELS4E".

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ROLE OF THE AMINO ACIDS WITH VITAL FUNCTIONS ARE. OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE POST. SINCE THE AMINO ACIDS HAVE A ROLE IN THE TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION, YOUR INABILITY TO REPLY JUST DEMONSTRATES AGAIN........YOU DON'T KNOW A THING..........**NO MATTER WHAT YOU "BELIEVE" YOU KNOW**.

AND WORSE FOR YOU AND YOUR "BUDDIES IN IGNORANCE".........WHERE IGNORANCE IS BLISS, TIS FOLLY TO BE WISE SO........"FOLLOW YOUR BLISS".

END (IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE).

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

That is crap from another Foaming Mouth.

Unlike people in dire need of Prozac or Librium like you, I don't even get a traffic ticket OR a parking ticket in the last 10 years.

I don't have a gun, rifle or firearm but I can assure you that I still know how to use one. I was taught how to use them and RESPECT THEM.

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

< Get a clue, "usher". Radiocarbon dating can NOT date ANYTHING on the order of "millions of years". Its limits are in the 25k to 35k years.

Elbow

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

Elbow:

I guess someone needs to remind you that there are many radiometric dating techniques, and carbon methods are only some of them. Others are quite accurate for very much longer time periods.

Except that I know from some of your prior posts that you knew this already. You sure are good at omitting salient facts to create comfortable half-truths, aren't you? Why?

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

This is probably another just another "belief" by scientists:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/640095.asp

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

Flint, I omitted nothing that would make what I said a half-truth. You've bent over backwards to grasp that straw. Hardly up to your standards of criticism. "usher" first called CL ignorant of "Carbon dating" and then claimed it was used to establish the age of eggs. You don't see the irony? Who was in error, Flint? Why didn't *you* correct usher? You could have added all the information you felt was pertinent.

Elbow

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

Actually C14 dating can work to 60-75,000 years which is far greater than the 6,000 years the Literalists peddle. So, if the Bible is wrong about the 6,000 years, what else could be wrong?

http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

The first mention of carbon dating on this thread was by Chicken Little. CL (following creationist practice) cited early efforts to calibrate carbon dating, out of context, and without mentioning the real-world error-correction process actually used (doubtless because his creationist data sources "accidentally" omitted this as well). So, the erroneous identification of the isotope was not usher at all! Note that Elbow did not bother to correct CL. Only when "usher" bought into CL's error and repeated it did Elbow rise up to correct...usher! Fancy that!

Now, "usher" changes the subject a bit, claiming (entirely correctly) that carbon dating methods are indeed quite accurate, and unequivocally identify correct ages an order of magnitude older than CL's (and Elbow's) superstitions permit. However, we have no indication that carbon dating was used to date these eggs. Such an egregious error (off by a factor of 1000) is vanishingly unlikely to have been made by any knowledgeable scientist.

By all indications, both CL and usher have equated carbon dating with radiometric (isotope-based) methods generally. In fact, carbon isotopes are only a subset of all isotopes used, and happen to be seriously inappropropriate (and indeed not used) for dating these eggs.

Meanwhile, the actual point (remember? There WAS an original point being made) is that no knowledgeable people have any sincere doubt that the age or provinance of these eggs have been validly assessed. Indeed, the age of the eggs is both expected and unremarkable. What is unusual is the nature and quality of the items found. Real dinosaur eggs are a rarity.

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2001

Where did the first "something" come from that began the evolution proccess?

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Flint,

You are right. I admit my mistake: I skimmed the original article, and thought CL was making reference to it. His introduction of C14 dating was the non sequitur.

Elbow

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

The real problem with this article is the headline:

Scientists trace fossils of unborn to titanosaurs that roamed Argentina 80 million years ago

Typical evolution belief. There ARE fossils....they are right there for anyone to see. no one denies that. But then the EB "faith" kicks in....roamed argentina 80 million years ago. Huh? How do fossilized eggs prove that a critter roamed 80 million years ago? THAT is the leap in logic that always gets the "faithful" in trouble.

Amazing to see how far EBS has progressed in just a short ten years.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

THE "CREATIONISTS" AGAIN DEMONSTRATE THE USE OF THEIR PROPAGANDA ALA: "1984". THEY SUBSTITUTE THE WORDS FOR CREATIONISM'S BELIEF SYSTEM BASED ON A PRIORI AND TRY TO SMEAR ANY SCIENCE THAT DISAGREES WITH THEIR BELIEFS. IN THE SMEARING THEY ACCUSE SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION ADVOCATES OF THAT WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ARE THE MOST GUILTY OF.

THIS MAY SATISFY THEIR........HILL BILLY BELIEVER FANS......BUT NEVER CONVINCE THOSE WITH MORE THAN GRADE SCHOOL EDUCATIONS.

EVOLUTION IS NOT A "BELIEF", CREATIONISM IS.

EVOLUTION IS NOT PART OF A SCIENTIFIC CULTISM. CREATIONISM IS.

EVOLUTION IS NOT PREDICATED ON ANY "BELIEFS". CREATIONISM IS.

EVOLUTION IS BASED ON A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS. CREATIONISM IS NOT.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

EVOLUTION IS NOT A "BELIEF", CREATIONISM IS also

EVOLUTION IS NOT PART OF A SCIENTIFIC CULTISM. CREATIONISM IS NOT.

EVOLUTION IS NOT PREDICATED ON ANY "BELIEFS". CREATIONISM IS also.

EVOLUTION IS BASED ON A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS conjecture and "just so" hyperbole. CREATIONISM IS NOT.

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2001

WOW. censorship to leave only chuckles words intact.

Time to leave....

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2001

WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM ABOUT CENSORSHIP? GET A BROWSER THAT WORKS

THERE IS SOME SCRIPT IN THE MSNBC PAGES THAT DOESN'T RENDER CORRECTLY HERE.

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2001

Another great resource for OPEN MINDS VS. the Literalist BIGOTS

THE BEST FOR THE SLOW OF MIND WHO DON'T "GRASP" MATTERS QUICKLY A QUICK SUMMARY OF "WHAT CREATIONISTS HATE".

LINK
http://www.holysmoke.org/thought.htm

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2001

THE STORY OF THE BIG BANG

LINK

-- Anonymous, October 21, 2001