Gigantoraptor; another lie of science

[Bobby-Joe]

Here we go with more Darwinist nonsense

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070613/ap_on_sc/china_giant_fossil;_ylt=AqfzuhSIu3zlbKhJA4vPHZbMWM0F

BEIJING - The remains of a giant, birdlike dinosaur as tall as the formidable tyrannosaur have been found in China, a surprising discovery that indicates a more complicated evolutionary process for birds than originally thought, scientists said Wednesday.
Fossilized bones uncovered in the Erlian Basin of northern China's Inner Mongolia region show that the specimen was about 26 feet long, 16 feet tall and weighed 3,000 pounds, said Xu Xing, a paleontologist at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology & Paleoanthropology in Beijing.

3,000lbs, come on? There is no way any animal could be this big; jiggle factor from it bosoms alone would have caused serious injury when it moved. Just look at a mature woman, her breasts typically take 1/20 of her weight or thereabouts. This would mean the Giganoraptor's bosoms were over 150lbs! That much mass moving around would be a danger to the creature. We do not want to speculate what the males were like. No, you can bet your bottom dollar this is yet another “million year old” fossil manufactured in some factory in China to fool the rubes.
Just this time the scientists got a little carried away.

[Talitha]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another lie of science

What do you expect from an Ornamental called Xu Xing??

Ridiculous!

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another lie of science

What do you expect from an Ornamental called Xu Xing??

Ridiculous!

By the way, in the chink "language" Xu Xing means "skunk crossing". They name their little slant babies after the first road sign they see.

[Virginia Day Templeton]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another lie of science

That puts the Gigantoraptor's existence at odds with prevailing theories that dinosaurs became smaller as they evolved into birds and that bigger dinosaurs had less birdlike characteristics, he said.

In other words, if this thing is real it blows Darwin's theory out of the water. I still think the scienticians are just pretending to disagree so the world won't realize they're all controlled by the same joo cabal.

[eliot mayfield]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another lie of science

Remember the last bird dinosauer? Was in National Geo and everything and turned out to be a fake! I believe in God, not cheap Chinese trinkets!

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another lie of science

In other words, if this thing is real it blows Darwin's theory out of the water. I still think the scienticians are just pretending to disagree so the world won't realize they're all controlled by the same joo cabal.

I think you give them too much credit: I'd say that the mental strain of having to keep a straight face while they come out with this gobbledegook takes up so much of their attention that they're barely capable of making sure they're not contradicting themselves, let alone each other.

[Peter]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another fact of science

Here we go with more Darwinist nonsense

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070613/ap_on_sc/china_giant_fossil;_ylt=AqfzuhSIu3zlbKhJA4vPHZbMWM0F

3,000lbs, come on? There is no way any animal could be this big; jiggle factor from it bosoms alone would have caused serious injury when it moved. Just look at a mature woman, her breasts typically take 1/20 of her weight or thereabouts. This would mean the Giganoraptor's bosoms were over 150lbs! That much mass moving around would be a danger to the creature. We do not want to speculate what the males were like. No, you can bet your bottom dollar this is yet another “million year old” fossil manufactured in some factory in China to fool the rubes.
Just this time the scientists got a little carried away.

1. You can't compare a human to a dinosaur.
2. Dinosaurs were not mammals, so they didn't have bosoms.

[Mrs. Mary Whitford]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another fact of science

1. You can't compare a human to a dinosaur.
2. Dinosaurs were not mammals, so they didn't have bosoms.

But according to Darwin and other scienticians, it's all the same thing! Make up your mind!

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another fact of science

1. You can't compare a human to a dinosaur.

What utter rot. Dinosaurs are scaly, large, and extinct; humans are very rarely scaly, just the right size, and currently dominate the planet. You see what I did there? I compared a human to a dinosaur. Yet another scientific "theory" completely debunked.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another fact of science

What utter rot. Dinosaurs are scaly, large, and extinct; humans are very rarely scaly, just the right size, and currently dominate the planet. You see what I did there? I compared a human to a dinosaur. Yet another scientific "theory" completely debunked.

Praise Jesus these Darwinistas get easier to debunk with each passing day. This fool Peter wants to claim that we can't compare dinosaurs and humans, but they are fine with comparing (and even lumping together) humans and chimpanzees. The lies they pull out of their demonic asses just astonish me.

Jesus always wins.

[Old Iron Crotch]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another lie of science

Here we go with more Darwinist nonsense

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070613/ap_on_sc/china_giant_fossil;_ylt=AqfzuhSIu3zlbKhJA4vPHZbMWM0F

3,000lbs, come on? There is no way any animal could be this big; jiggle factor from it bosoms alone would have caused serious injury when it moved. Just look at a mature woman, her breasts typically take 1/20 of her weight or thereabouts. This would mean the Giganoraptor's bosoms were over 150lbs! That much mass moving around would be a danger to the creature. We do not want to speculate what the males were like. No, you can bet your bottom dollar this is yet another “million year old” fossil manufactured in some factory in China to fool the rubes.
Just this time the scientists got a little carried away.

BJ,
Reptiles do not have breasts. Only mammals have breasts.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another lie of science

BJ,
Reptiles do not have breasts. Only mammals have breasts.

Dinosaurs are not reptiles.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another fact of science

1. You can't compare a human to a dinosaur.
2. Dinosaurs were not mammals, so they didn't have bosoms.

So what does that have to do with how big the creatures breasts are???? Oh I get it, Dinosaurs naturally had bras to avoid damaging themselves with their over sized hooters. Typical Darwinist stunt to try to hide behind a semantic game. Face it, this creature is utterly implausible.

[Peter]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another fact of science

But according to Darwin and other scienticians, it's all the same thing! Make up your mind!

I'm a scientist, and I say that it's not the same thing. Darwin didn't say that dinosaurs and humans are the same. He said that we evolved from the early creatures.

What utter rot. Dinosaurs are scaly, large, and extinct; humans are very rarely scaly, just the right size, and currently dominate the planet. You see what I did there? I compared a human to a dinosaur. Yet another scientific "theory" completely debunked.

I meant with that argument that you can't say that a specific animal (in this case dinosaurs) has certain things in common with humans, unless it has been proven.

Praise Jesus these Darwinistas get easier to debunk with each passing day. This fool Peter wants to claim that we can't compare dinosaurs and humans, but they are fine with comparing (and even lumping together) humans and chimpanzees. The lies they pull out of their demonic asses just astonish me.

Jesus always wins.

Ever heard of taxonomy? It says that some animals are closer related to each other than other animals. Humans and monkeys have a lot in common, but humans and dinosaurs don't have much things in common. How come that they have less things in common? The answer: evolution.

Science always wins.

[Peter]

Re: Gigantoraptor; another fact of science

So what does that have to do with how big the creatures breasts are???? Oh I get it, Dinosaurs naturally had bras to avoid damaging themselves with their over sized hooters. Typical Darwinist stunt to try to hide behind a semantic game. Face it, this creature is utterly implausible.

Dinosaurs didn't have breasts.

Actually, it were reptiles.