New dinosaur species is a missing link
April 12th, 2011
07:15 PM ET

New dinosaur species is a missing link

It's fitting that a place called Ghost Ranch, New Mexico, would yield the discovery of a scary-looking creature. But it's not a ghost - it's a dinosaur.

This dog-sized, ferocious-looking critter is called Daemonosaurus chauliodus, which means something along the lines of  “buck-toothed evil lizard,” says Hans-Dieter Sues, lead author of the published research describing this dinosaur, and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

The illustration above compares the head and neck with a quarter. You can see that it has a short snout and enormous front teeth.

Scientists found the skull and neck of this previously unrecognized dinosaur, and described it in a study in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

This dinosaur provides a link between what paleontologists consider "early" and "later" dinosaurs. There's a gap in the fossil record between the oldest known dinosaurs, which walked or ran on their hind legs about 230 million years ago in Argentina and Brazil, and other predatory dinosaurs that lived much later. Daemonosaurus chauliodus helps fill in a blank in dinosaur history.

This newly discovered species lived about 205 million years ago, and probably preyed on other dinosaurs and other small animals, Sues said. At that time, what is now the American Southwest was located close to the equator, so it was warm and monsoon-like with heavy seasonal precipitation. This dinosaur was probably active during the day, although its large eyes suggest it could have seen at night as well.

How did it go extinct? It may have fallen victim to an extinction event that occurred about 200 million years ago. As the continents were separating, there was a large zone of volcanic activity. Enormous quantities of lava was released, doing "horrible things to the atmosphere." Most dinosaurs made it through (that is, until an asteroid struck around 65 million years ago), but perhaps not this one.

"It just shows that even here in the United States, there are still many new dinosaurs to be found," Sues said. "People always think we have to go to some remote places, but, right here in northern New Mexico, we can still find new dinosaurs."

Post by:
Filed under: Animals • Dinosaurs
soundoff (565 Responses)
  1. Frank

    As a person of faith, I do believe that evolution has pretty well been proven, heck even the Catholic Church acknowledges that now, the evidence is there. The only question now is how did it all start?

    April 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      Frank, nice.....Religion is a belief of the heart and I find no folly in those who choose to believe. I'm happy for those who do, But I find folly in religous whack-jbs who can not or worse, will not see religion for what it was and created for. Frank...enjoy what you believe and be happy in your life.

      “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

      April 13, 2011 at 9:10 am | Report abuse |
  2. Sean

    I thought Jesesaurus Rex was the missing link?

    April 12, 2011 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Dave R

    Q: What does a creationist say whenever we discover such a missing link?
    A: “Great, two new gaps!”

    April 12, 2011 at 10:56 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Mr. L.

    To be honest, a neck and a skull, although, may convey head features, eye size, teeth, etc. I think just by the description, this article fails to show how this is a transition. There are a lot of assumptions, that you can only believe if you have enough faith in the cartoons depicted. Just because somebody prints "it's a missing link", it does not mean, it is, or that it has been proven that it is. Sorry. Next item please?

    April 12, 2011 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Evan

      Yes, scientists constantly claim they have found the missing link, only to be proven incorrect later.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:14 pm | Report abuse |
  5. kumalo

    When the LORD shall turn again the captivity of Zion, we shall be like them that dream

    April 12, 2011 at 11:07 pm | Report abuse |
  6. DeeDubya

    Hahahaha Bristol Palin or Michelle Malkin bywahahaha. Actually it looks more like your mama!! Now that's funnier. Honestly you band wagon liberals can't hate enough.

    April 12, 2011 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
  7. The Atheist

    It looks like Jesus. Nail it to a cross and worship it in a few thousand years and make sure it hates everything you're afraid of while you're at it. Because it's the moral thing to do.

    April 12, 2011 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jerry2

      It is a a disgusting sight - seeing that near naked dead man hanging from a torture rack! If I were to walk around town dressed like that, I bet they would have me jailed! I imagine that many girls get turned on looking at that thing! If Jesus lived today and was executed with an M-16, I guess they would have M-16s posted in every church and on necklesses around their necks. Good thing he was not killed by an H-Bomb!

      April 13, 2011 at 2:55 am | Report abuse |
  8. Sheep

    LOL @ evolution is a fact. In a hundred years or so, scientists will look back at this far fetched theory with great laughter. Oh to be a fly on the wall – that is if the fly has not "evolved" into a superbug or a dinosect.

    April 12, 2011 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Yes URA Uneducated Sheep

      Yes...They'll sit back and laugh at it like they laugh at all the scientific progress that has come about using Evolution as the major framework for Biology.They think that extending your lifespan is hysterical.

      April 12, 2011 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
  9. WeirdMN

    Northern New Mexico is plenty remote!

    April 12, 2011 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • MD

      @Caveman: true. "Ex-Wife-A-Aaurus" is one mean dinosaur, and the only meaner dinosaur is a "Mother-In-Law-A-Aaurus" ... They both "evolved" into Giant Chickens pecking on certain people: I feel bad for the poor fellow in the video.

      April 13, 2011 at 9:16 am | Report abuse |
    • Villaqomez&Quinoez

      That's An Uqly Dinosaur lOl

      April 13, 2011 at 9:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Villaqomez&Quinonez

      – It's A Cupacabra Lmao

      April 13, 2011 at 9:56 am | Report abuse |
    • f

      The dinosuars did not die off from some asteroid cataclysm. They died of pure ugliness!

      April 13, 2011 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      I would definitely agree it is Bu Tugly!

      April 13, 2011 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
    • jennygirl

      i think you mean ex-wife-a-Saurus

      April 13, 2011 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
    • Think

      The dillusional fundmentalsauruses and the aggressive atheosaurs are all over this page. Sadly, few peaceful agnostosauruses or catholisaurs are here to bring some reason to the discussion.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
  10. crucified

    This is no Missing Link..transitional the story states Early dinosaurs versus later.. CNN just trying to get interesting

    April 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Alan

      And yet you read it!

      April 13, 2011 at 1:12 am | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      And you know this how? Are you a qualified palaeontologist or just a religious crack pot who dismisses evidence of anything that invalidates your stupid, bronze-age myths?

      April 13, 2011 at 1:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Jerry2

      How can it be a "missing" link if we found it?

      It cannot be about 200 million years old, because when you add up the ages of Jesus' ancestors back to Adam, you will find that God created the entire universe in 2004 B.C. This was first computed by Archbishop Ussher from Ireland in 1600 AD. Many others have computed it since then and arrived at the same date. It takes only simple arithmetic. Get out your bible and prove it yourself.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:49 am | Report abuse |
    • @jerry2


      April 13, 2011 at 2:14 am | Report abuse |
    • Sohei

      @jerry...The Jewish torah is 2,500 years old. Yet there are cultures that are 6,000 years old. Indian cultures are much older.

      April 13, 2011 at 2:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Sohei

      @jerry2... The "missing link" is for the archaeological record. Doesn't mention humanity or religion anywhere in the article. As far as your beliefs in biblical chronology, perhaps you should realize that there are at least four main schools of creationism chronology. Also realize that there are over 32,000 christian denominations. Christians can't even agree on the color of sh**.

      April 13, 2011 at 2:59 am | Report abuse |
    • daws

      Darn it, two more gaps created! 😛 Of course there are no "missing-links" per se, that's a misnomer, it's all "transitional fossils". But really doesn't this border on semantics? As a side note, it's so sad that we can't tell if Jerry is really serious or not lol

      April 13, 2011 at 4:37 am | Report abuse |
    • jt

      It cracks me up when people say they don't care or a story is stupid but yet they take the time out to read it and post about it. Who's stupid now.

      April 13, 2011 at 7:28 am | Report abuse |
    • Harry Butts

      It does look a little like Hillary Clinton.

      April 13, 2011 at 7:48 am | Report abuse |
    • Think

      I feel very sorry for Christians (or any other religious fundimentalists) who require God to conform to their particular reading of the Bible. Evolution does not threaten a belief in God. Just ask the Pope, or any other Catholic. There is no reason to ignore science, evidence, facts etc. Only the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura requires that they blindly accept every word of the Bible as fact, rather than understanding that much of it is parable and analogy.
      The Earth is 4+ billion years old. Man did not walk with dinosaurs. These are facts. Don't base your faith on quackery and pseudo-science debunking real science. It reflects badly on the rest of us Christians.

      April 13, 2011 at 8:35 am | Report abuse |
    • JoeProfet

      You people need to settle your arguements within your own wisdom as to whether man evolved or was created, stop trying to convince each other of the origins of man, and maybe focus those self-proclaimed genius brain cells of yours towards improving our future on this MAN-forsaken planet! What a wasted subject...creation or evolution??? The fish, the dinasours, the birds, the mamals, the freaking bugs don't give a rats patute about who evolved from what or was created, they need to know only one thing, where they are going to get their source of food next! MOVE ON folks!

      April 13, 2011 at 8:56 am | Report abuse |
    • MD

      Maybe transitional, but my guess these Giant Chickens is what this bird looking dino evolved into:

      April 13, 2011 at 9:11 am | Report abuse |
    • tripp

      @ crusified--You're an idiot.

      April 13, 2011 at 9:43 am | Report abuse |
    • tripp

      @joeprofit....So we should all just lay back and say god did it? What a lazy thing to do. You're lack of curiosity is mind boggling in itself.

      April 13, 2011 at 9:46 am | Report abuse |
    • jhazard88

      LOL and you paleontological expertise tells you otherwise....experts are calling this a missing link...who the hell are you???

      April 13, 2011 at 9:49 am | Report abuse |
    • shhhhhh

      @JoeProfet nice try to be cute with your "man-forsaken planet" comment...

      verb (used with object), -sook, -sak·en, -sak·ing.
      1. to quit or leave entirely; abandon; desert

      April 13, 2011 at 9:52 am | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      I don't see where Crucified mentioned anything about God in his comment - yet you people automatically attack him – why? Because of his name choice? If you guys are "so Scientifically sure" – then why does a Christian pose such a threat to your belief? Could it be that somewhere in the back of your mind you think maybe that Science is wrong and there is a God?

      April 13, 2011 at 9:53 am | Report abuse |
    • Thinking better

      Think, I would not let others think for you. Your entire statement is based on others theories... You basically completely contradicted yourself.

      April 13, 2011 at 9:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Think

      No, Thinking Better. I have seen fossils, even own a few. I understand the concepts of plate techtonics, radioactive decay and stellar red shift. I also know that young Earth creationists take all the obvious facts as seen all around us, and try to debunk reality. Unless young earth creationists believe that God spent the 7th day burying false evidence of evolution, tweeking isotope ratios and changing the laws of physics moment by moment just to make the universe appear to be 14 billion years old to confuse us, then I really don't understand who is doing your thinking. It surely isn't you.

      April 13, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
    • tg

      I understand that man and dinosaurs did not walk together. I am not atheist but have a totally different view about everything especially with evidence being as it is that man and dinosaurs did not walk together. I believe that the Bible is wrong. I don't believe in such a thing, how can I? when I know that it was written well after Jesus died. I have come to the conclusion that our existence is after multiple attempts to produce the perfect world and scrapping them by a higher power. I believe there is a heaven with people whom I have had the pleasure of meeting while they passed on. I am well beyond the passage of time. back then a day in the bible would probably have been a couple of years. Who knows? I think its ridiculous for a person to bash evidence of this kind and then have the audacity to hide behind their religious beliefs. When the time comes, we will know just what it is that awaits us. Until then, we might as well just accept each other. BECAUSE maybe, just maybe we are all wrong.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:10 am | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      Testing – I keep sending a reply and nothing appears – censorship I guess

      April 13, 2011 at 11:21 am | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      OK – try again,

      Think - you seem to believe in both – just not a literal interp. of the Bible. So, let me ask you this - How old was Adam when he was created? Sounds like a silly question but, obvious answer is – he looked like a grown man – maybe 30 years old – but, minutes old. So, hmm, God made something look older than it really is...???

      April 13, 2011 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      And Think – what about your fossils? How did those come to being? Over millions of years? No – they are made by sudden climatic events with sediment, lack of oxygen, water, and high pressure - sounds like a flood and many other events that would have happened at the same time – volcanos, earthquakes, – total destruction.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      Tripp said – "So we should all just lay back and say god did it? What a lazy thing to do. You're lack of curiosity is mind boggling in itself."

      – Just the opposite – I love investigating the amazing things God does in Nature - whether he set them in motion as a cycle or daily controls things - it's amazing.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
    • Think

      Chuck, my personal belief is that God created the universe in such a way as to support life. Life evolved and at some point became sentient. The Catholic Church will tell you that God may have instilled the spark of divinity into man at that point rather than creating him from dust as it were.
      If God created only Adam and Eve, who did Kane go to live with after murdering Abel?
      As for time lines, the Milky Way is 55 milion light years wide. If the world is as young as I assume you believe it to be, how can we see the stars?

      April 13, 2011 at 11:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      Think – I think your problem, and the Catholic Church's problem, is that your God is big enough to create the Big Bang – but, not big enough to control it. To answer your question – and maybe this is too simple minded for you, but, I think he set the stars in motion not far from where they are – there was no Big Bang – it is as it was – just in motion.

      Oh – and the silliness people always want to bring up about Cane's wife - Adam and Eve had other kids – Daughters aren't mentioned - so, yes it was probably his sister. Which would have been fine in 2 people with near perfect DNA.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Think

      Chuck, if he created the stars where they are only a few thousand years ago, the light, travelling at light speed would not be hear for another 54,995,000 years. And that is just the stars we see in the Milky Way, ignoring the other many thousands of galaxies.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      Think – I do understand what you are saying and as I said – my thinking may be too simplistic for you – but, I believe visual light is instantaneous – not something that is used as a measurement of time or distance. I know you'll think that's insane but, light can be bent by gravity and effected by atmosphere – magnified, separated, etc. I don't believe that when we look at the sky we are looking at the past. For example, as I said earlier, up until Hubble was launch – measurements of light from the Earth said the Universe was 28 Billion years old – measured from Hubble – they changed their minds to 14 Billion years old - so it dropped 14 billion years in what 6 miles in space??

      April 13, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Think

      Further, Chuck it is not about how "big" God is, but basic logic. Not how, but why would He create the universe with every measurable and observable piece of evidence pointing to a universe billions of years old if that is not the case.
      The problem with fundimentalism is it creates more atheists than anything else. You teach your children that everything science has found out about the world is in contridiction to God. This creates a false choice between measurable reality and the existence of God. If they were the only two choices, science has a lot more evidence. This is why so many kids come home from high school and college as atheists.
      You, not the Church try to make God small, by saying that he can only work in the way that you interperate a 3,000 year old book as saying he works.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Think

      Chuck, I am sorry, but when we speak of belief, then we are in the realm of faith, not science. Light moves at light speed. That is not a belief. It is a fact. This fact is what makes Radar and GPSs work (Radio waves are a form electromagnetic radiation, just like light only a different frequency) Please don't confuse fact with belief or theory.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      Think – "The problem with fundimentalism is it creates more atheists than anything else. You teach your children that everything science has found out about the world is in contridiction to God. This creates a false choice between measurable reality and the existence of God."

      Wow! Actually it's the exact opposite – I believe a God that was there and created it all told us exactly how he did it, and that Christian Scientists are proving that a young Earth (and Universe) is very possible. Whereas, those who don't believe in God – do everything in their ability to prove that it is not how "He" said and therefore hoping to prove that God doesn't exist. In turn Creating Atheists. – I think you really should go and learn what Darwin and Huxley's main goals were – to prove God doesn't exist – Huxley especially hated everything to do with Christianity. Huxley was the man who coined the word Agnostic. Darwin, a former believer (supposedly), went insane after his daughter died and started his quest to destroy "God".

      April 13, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      Think - thanks for the Science lesson - I design radar and GPS equipment. Have a good day.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Think

      Chuck, you believe that light can not be used to measure distance and you claim to design systems using forms of light to measure distance? How does a laser range finder work? Magic? You are either a liar or completely insane. Either way, have a nice day as well.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      Think – OK – I didn't mean to keep this going – but, just couldn't let it end on calling me a liar. I never said Light couldn't measure anything. I just don't believe the same principle applies to a visible light coming from a star. A laser range finder measures pulses of light originating from it and measuring the time it takes to reflect – thereby, calculating distance from pulse to reflection. That being a "limited" pulse and distance. The farther it goes – the less acurate it gets due to the limits of the equipment - therefore a min requirement is in play for range finders, radars, GPS - the most accurate is to have multiples and triangulate them – which is what happens in the GPS world – more satellites you talk to – the more accurate you get.

      April 13, 2011 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Think

      OK, Chuck. I understand now. Light from the Milky Way arrives here on Earth 54,995,000 years sooner than all scientific experimentation would predict. So it actually travels 10,000 times as fast in space as on Earth. Again ignoring other galaxies, which are billions of light years away. I will pray to God that I am never on a plane using GPS or radar you designed.
      And for the record, I said either a liar or insane. I am actually tending to believe you are insane, that you can believe that light travels tens of thousands even millions of times as fast as it has ever been measured to travel, just so that you can believe in your sola scripturum version of the Bible.

      April 13, 2011 at 2:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      Think - that's OK – I'm used to being called "insane","crazy", "nutjob", "idiot", "wacko".... etc. – Because it always seems that the "Intellectual Scientists with a much higher IQ than anyone else, who knows EVERYTHING about the Universe, and would never admit that there is the slightest possibility that they may be wrong", like yourself, – always seem to just result to name calling.

      April 13, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Think

      I don't mean insane as an insult. More of a diagnosis. You deny basic facts and obvious realities. This is ther definition of madness. God is not so small that He needs to fit in the box you made for him. If he made an infinite universe 14 billion years ago, more glory to him, not less. If He created a million worlds where life has evolved into sentience, He is made bigger, not smaller.
      It is by denying basic facts that fundimentalists create so many atheists. I have met so many former Christians who lost their faith because they thought science, real measurable science, denied their faith. There is no conflict between reality and faith if you let go of your literalist reading of the Bible, ignoring the countless contridictions involved.

      April 13, 2011 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chuck

      Think – wow! OK round and round we go – I'm creating atheist again by saying – "Believe the Bible". While you are not by saying – "Don't believe the Bible. That makes sense to an insane person.
      Final thought – didn't Einstein himself say that "One way speed of light is not measurable"? You claim that "C" is constant at all times (even though we know of cases where it's not – through transparents, atmosphere, etc) and can't exponentially increase in any case. But, you would say that we have to exponentially increase Carbon and Isotopes to get dating methods to "jive" – whereas, I would say they are constant which means dating methods would die around 6000 years - hmmm.... yep – I guess I'm insane – I deny that your methods are factual.

      April 13, 2011 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Soda Bob Curtis

      "LOL and you paleontological expertise tells you otherwise....experts are calling this a missing link...who the hell are you???"

      Where in the article does it say experts are calling this a "missing link?" It doesn't. That's the article writer. Most modern paleontologists have abandoned the idea of "missing links" because, as Crucified says, there is no such thing, just "transitional species." In short, a "missing link" when discovered only creates more "links" in the chain that are missing!

      "I don't see where Crucified mentioned anything about God in his comment – yet you people automatically attack him – why? Because of his name choice? If you guys are "so Scientifically sure" – then why does a Christian pose such a threat to your belief? Could it be that somewhere in the back of your mind you think maybe that Science is wrong and there is a God?"

      Crucified did not mention God. Nor was he disputing evolution (indeed, he's confirming his knowledge of it, not disputing it). And who says that Crucified is a Christian? Lots of people in history were crucified (by the Romans and others) that weren't Jesus 🙂

      April 14, 2011 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
  11. Paul

    As with all "missing links," this will turn out not to be one, but it will be trumped as one just long enough to dupe the populous into believing in them. (sigh.) Of course, once it's debunked we won't hear anything about it. And on goes the conspiracy...

    April 12, 2011 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Justin

      It's not a missing link. It is just one species in a long history of animals that slowly changed over millions of years. It's like taking a picture of me as a child and one as an adult and then finding one photo in between as a teenager and calling that one photo a missing link....preposterous, and stupid.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:13 am | Report abuse |
    • stormsun

      What conspiracy?

      April 13, 2011 at 12:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Necifix

      Right, and God did it instead. People like you sicken me with the ignorance.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:12 am | Report abuse |
    • Kiddo

      What the $)(%^& are you talking about moron! Get some brains before you reply to an inteligent story.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:17 am | Report abuse |
    • CaEd

      ok. Suppose there is a conspiracy.

      What is the underling truth that is being kept from us and why.

      Maybe this dinosaur was the progenitor of today's oil fields?
      It was an escaped pet from one of the alien landings?
      Maybe it was a alien crew member that got separated but couldn't find his way home 'cus there weren't enough skittles?

      April 13, 2011 at 1:49 am | Report abuse |
    • bsitz

      Justin, that is not what a missing link is.

      April 13, 2011 at 9:10 am | Report abuse |
    • moorejw

      Why is it that when CNN posts an article about, say, physics, none of the Christian fundamentalists come out to play. BUT, when there is an article...any article...relating to evolution, everyone comes out of hiding. Drives me crazy!

      And Paul, do some research before you spout this nonsense. We don't call them missing links anymore, we call them transitional forms. One very good example of a recently discovered transistional form is Tiktaalik. Look it up.

      April 13, 2011 at 9:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Ray

      Moorejw, if he were the kind who would look it up, he wouldn't be the kind who would post this nonsense in the first place. It's not just ignorance, it's willful ignorance. No amount of evidence can cure that, because it's a choice, not a condition.

      April 13, 2011 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
    • f

      It is just another lame ploy for a scientist to try to attract "Funding" for his latest vacation to a warm, sunny spot so he can dig another hole. What a ridiculous waste of time and money. Other people's money. Grow up and get a real job and produce something for society.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:06 am | Report abuse |
  12. Dolph

    You all fail to recognize that many scientists (and by many, I mean a very high percentage) see science as a way to explain God. Our tiny brains have no idea how to describe Him, so we turn to science to study His creation. God and science are not separate.

    The fundamental creationists have it wrong, as do the fundamental evolutionists. The truth is in between. How do you prove the existence of God? By showing the mountains of evidence of EXISTENCE. Atoms are God's creation. Quarks are God's creation. Black holes are God's creation. He set into motion everything that we know.

    Now that humans have EVOLVED, we are finally at a point where we can begin to see God's work through the lens of science.

    April 12, 2011 at 11:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • apple

      how can you prove atoms came from god and not unicorn pee

      April 12, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sohei

      Where exactly in the Judeo-Christian bible does it say that god created atoms and quarks? Do you even know who wrote the Pentateuch? Understand who wrote your bible and where it's basis came from, according to biblical scholars.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Jeff in NJ

      We found a missing link right here with Dolph! He is the missing link between ridiculousness and moronicness

      April 13, 2011 at 12:34 am | Report abuse |
    • God

      I disagree with your explanation of my process #1 because I was there and #2 because of your tiny brain.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Guester

      I don't believe that's accurate. Last statistics I saw said somewhere around 80% of scientists don't believe in God.

      April 13, 2011 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
    • brad

      it doesn't matter that scientists are largely agnostic if not atheists. the desire to explain the tactile and ethereal world comes from the same predisposition as religion. as much as we try we will never truly know reality, we will always be that 1/100th of a second behind the times. ultimately man exists to say he exists, and that is biologically determined.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:18 am | Report abuse |
    • mhouse

      This thing a relative of the Honey Badger?

      April 13, 2011 at 3:07 am | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Dolph, you suffer from the God Delusion-Insanity. In a large part.

      April 13, 2011 at 3:11 am | Report abuse |
    • Nick

      hahahaha when people lie and say that there are scientists who believe in god, it makes me laugh. There is no debate in the scientific community whatsoever. It exists only in the mind of delusional creationists who refuse to accept the absurdity of their fairy tale beliefs.

      April 13, 2011 at 6:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Evan

      Nick, look up "Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways". That's just a start.

      April 13, 2011 at 9:37 am | Report abuse |
    • mb2010a

      Let's leave s e x out of this, OK.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
    • Straight A's

      Yeah Nick. Look up a guy who wrote great "medieval" jebus self help books. You can't beat old could with a little of that Old Crazy Newton looking for the date of Armageddon.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matt

      @Dolph....Science doesn't seek to explain god nor does it even account for the existence of a supernatural being. It seeks to explain and understand the natural world and universe around us through observation, correlation and experimentation.

      April 13, 2011 at 7:13 am | Report abuse |
    • Craig Holm

      It is certainly true that many scientists, including Issac Newton, seek to get a better understanding of God by understanding His Creation. The point isthat all this controversy revolves around the things we DON'T know about the world. As to the Bible, it's a guide for social behaviour. It is not a geology book or a biology book. It does not describe every single generation between Adam and Jesus. In point of fact there are three different ancestories of Jesus described in the New Testament. Bottom line: There's a lot that went on in the past few thousand years that is not mentioned in the Bible. There is one truth (multiverses not withstanding). Our God-given intelligence tells us one thing and a book written by devinely inspired, but ignorant people tells us some thing else. We must keep an open mind and continue to reconcile the differences between faith and science.

      April 13, 2011 at 7:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Andrew

      Craig Holm
      What don't we know? What "controversy"? This isn't actually a controversy, there's no debate among the scientific literature. At all. It's not even a passing issue. Creationism is so wholly untenable that this whole "evolution creationism" debate only happens among the general populace because people happen to be very poorly educated on the subject, and so insane debunked statements like Behe's "Irriducable Complexity" argument continue to propagate among the uneducated.

      This isn't a fair discussion, it's tantamount to denying relativity, or plate tectonics, or atoms. (Which, as it happens, there are people who do deny relativity... and creationists who deny plate tectonics... but generally people seem ok with atoms)

      The crazies will still say there's a controversy, or a debate, but realistically, there isn't any. There is no debate, no controversy, evolution is so wholly supported, and creationism so fully untenable, that it is just people with some education on the subject trying to deal with individuals who will never be convinced.

      It doesn't matter how many times I post some peer reviewed journal articles on the subject, or list any number of transitional fossils, or debunk the same tired trumped up argument that has been championed by creationists since the 1960s and 70s, there is no arguing with someone who does not accept scientific research as scientific evidence. This isn't a real debate. That implies two equal sides... science versus dogma is just a one sided slaughter.

      April 13, 2011 at 7:37 am | Report abuse |
    • James

      Dolph, the only problem with what you are saying is you keep using "him" and "he" as if he is a human form. That is EGO, not god. A god may have created all this, but I can promise you, it isn't a man, he, him or male. You should refer to god as god or "it".

      April 13, 2011 at 8:19 am | Report abuse |
    • InUrBlackHole

      Black holes have not been scientifically proven to exist, they are just hypothetical theory based on Einstein's work. There is as much data on them being real as there is about God being real.

      Black holes + God = 0 proof

      April 13, 2011 at 8:33 am | Report abuse |
    • Einstein

      Sheesh, I thought God would have straightened you out on this, but apparently even I have to come talk to you dolts. Black holes, while they haven't been seen, have been inferred through data thousands of times. We know the upper limit of mass for super dense stars, and we know that there are objects MORE massive than those at the center of galaxies... objects that have physical properties nearly identical to the "black holes" I described in my work.

      So... black holes are FAR more likely to exist than God. Wait, then who was that posting about being there when the atoms were created? Look out!!! Charlie Sheen is crushin' 7g rocks again!!!!!

      April 13, 2011 at 8:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Jeremy White

      How do you know the truth is somewhere in between those two? Maybe science and religion are completely wrong and it's not somewhere in between. Maybe God is an idea that is just way too simple used to explain holes that science hasn't yet or possibly can't ever explain . Maybe we've only just tapped the surface of the laws of physics and science will experience an infinite more Kühnian paradigm shifts.

      April 13, 2011 at 8:59 am | Report abuse |
  13. Only Way

    Yet another failed attempt to prove evolution!!! When I show a person closely related drug molecules that I synthezised and if this who has no knowledge about how these molecules were come about tells others that it is the proof of evolution WHAT WOULD YOU CALL this person?

    April 12, 2011 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • floydinator

      not sure, Only Way. But it does appear that you have been consuming some of your synthesized compounds.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:19 am | Report abuse |
    • Psych'ist

      What? I'm sorry, but your amphetamine abuse has rendered you incoherent and utterly nonsensical.
      You really should discontinue the drug abuse before your brain is beyond repair. Otherwise, you'll be stuck in "Sheenz Korner" for the rest of your life and trust me, if you don't have millions of dollars it's not a fun place to be...

      April 13, 2011 at 1:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Artfulskeptic

      No one is trying to "Prove Evolution." Rational thinks asked, "How did this happen?" What you broadly describe as evolution is what they discovered. There's a difference between discovery and invention. Evolution is something we found, not something we made. Quite the opposite of religion, really.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Artfulskeptic

      No one is trying to "Prove Evolution." Rational thinks asked, "How did this happen?" What you broadly describe as evolution is what they discovered. There's a difference between discovery and invention. Evolution is something we found, not something we made. Quite the opposite of religion.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:38 am | Report abuse |
    • The_Mick

      Somewhere along the line in my training as an organic synthetic chemist, I learned there's a difference between evolution and pure synthetic chemistry. Maybe you were absent that month – or taking one of those synthetic products.

      April 13, 2011 at 6:44 am | Report abuse |
    • Chartreux

      Only Way, your statement is incoherent. What are you trying to tell us?

      April 13, 2011 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
  14. bretdeployed

    careful Evan theyre intellectuals in here who will want to put sand in your hair and call shoes "dumb looking"

    April 12, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Yes URA Uneducated Sheep

    #1 Thomas Hunt Morgan died in 1945. When was DNA's double helix discovered? Antibiotic resistant Bactieria? You may as well be quoteing Newton about Einstein's theory of relativity
    #2 Oh yeah! Susumu Ohno's "The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome" where he talks about how so much diversity came about in the Cambrian Explosion. It's called punctated evolution. Why don't you take a dead mans work out of context.
    #3 Irreducible complexity? You might as well bring out the bible to thump it. It's called debunked by peer reviewed call it a conspiracy I bet.
    #4 Research the Ensatina salamander or go on reading your bible.
    Seems your post is more about solipsism than and your god have a lot in common.

    April 12, 2011 at 11:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      Well written:

      “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

      April 13, 2011 at 8:50 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15