Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Triceratops Never Existed?

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


The extra protection on the Tricerotops could be to help it survive while it is younger until it grow into a torosaurus or whatever it is called.




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


Three states do consider Pluto a planet. I think it's AZ, NM, and now IL.

Just FYI.

Labels really aren't so important. It's not like they mistook a dinosaur for something and invisible man must have put there to test their faith.




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Possible even probable I guess. But as with most paleontological arguments it is a argument with gaps and assumptions treated as facts. Seeing as to how the creatures we are talking about have been extinct for millions of years leaving us with no way to verify.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Shucks! The Tricerotops is one of my favorite dinosaurs. At least we still have the Tyrannosaurus Rex.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


i thought they discovered this a few years back in jurasic park?


seriously, nice find.


but, ya. science should stop taking stuff away from us that they taught us.


now we learn they have spent more than $10 billion us dollars worth of money on this hadron collider thing at CERN in order to prove the existance of a particle that has no mass and no structure???

why are scientists spending billions of dollars of our money to discover if nothing exists or not? isn't there plenty of nothing to see in the heavens?


and this steven hawking character, i mean really...
how far is this guy from his destination/goal if it the distance can no longer be measured by numbers and letters alone?


science can be a really weird religion,
et



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Interesting how the word believe in science is just as factual as testable repeatable evidence.

Yet there is no scientific testable evidence for said conjecture.

No way to see if it happens that way.

And just because there is not any smaller versions of the same does not make them related.

Of all the fossil evidence compiled 95% of it is of sea life. Of the remaining 5% only portions of any one organism is what they have, there are only a few complete skeletal remains of dragons.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by ACTS 2:38]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
This is beyond creepy. It lends more evidence that reptilian humanoids who shape shift CAN EXIST.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

as a Triceratops aged, its horns and frill became more similar to that of a Torosaurus.
- from the OP

So triceratops evolved into torosaurus as it grew older...

Well, that at least proves there is such a thing as evolution.
ooops
Congratulations dude, you just killed fundimental christianity....



just kidding.
I still believe in triceratops so they still exist in my mind.
though now they don't have so much room to move around in
but they get to eat from MnM trees.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


i want one of them!

toys-r-us or neiman marcus?

park that puppy in the dark with a motion switch and some lighting....
don't forget the cam! lol!



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
This guy is trying to convince people that dinosaurs and biblical figures existed together. With things changing so quickly and all of the disinformation out there I don't know what to believe sometimes, but this video made me laugh so hard that I choked. It's kind of boring at first, but give it a chance.

Ken Hovind

m.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
This is beyond creepy. It lends more evidence that reptilian humanoids who shape shift CAN EXIST.


Not really, all it suggests is that they grow into bigger dinosaurs.

Like how children 'shape-shift' into adults..



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FunnyLittleFrog
 


Children don't lose tails or sprout horns, and then move those horns and change skull shapes in a noticeable way.

The skull fuzes, and proportionately they grow larger. That's it.

I think the caterpillar to a butterfly analogy was better.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greensage
Was I suppose to see a difference in the two species? They do look related. I am not too sure I notice any "shapeshifting".

I think this is just someone that is justifying their job when there isn't anything left for them to discover personally, so they sit and write they have discovered some sort of revelation and it is all just common sense.



I have to say I agree with your sentiments. However a second image at the source article makes changes in the animal more obvious. Don't know how to embed an image so:

www.newscientist.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


I dunno, think about your or my own faces..

As a baby, they're very round, not much at the chin end. But as you grow, the face becomes more elongated, more gaunt, more adult.

Like this comparison:


Consider also the human pelvis. In women it develops to become much wider as she grows into an adult.

The article doesn't suggest that the transition was sudden, like caterpillar to butterfly, rather that owing to inevitable gaps in fossil specimens over the species' development, they have until now been separately classified.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Good pictures, It's absolutely believeable one changes into another. Nature never seises to try and be normal



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FunnyLittleFrog
 



Adolescent humans are much more "horney" than either their young or their old.


ooops sorry


Maybe after the mating age they just have pasturing to worry about, so no need for the artillary,



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Hahaha! Nice..


If you know you can't resist, resistance is futile!



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
you could use the butterfly as an example, it's a bit extreme in my oppinion, so let's compare it to frogs :p they "shape-shift" don't you think? they lose their tail, grow 4 legs etc etc..



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


I just saw the show "Walking with Dinosaurs" yesterday. It was AWESOME! Certopsians are my favorite dinosaurs anyway so seeing Torosaurus was really cool.

Anyway the deal with the article is that we cannot know with 100% assurance that a Trike was an immature form of Toro. Heck I would not rule out that the Torosaurus headgear was actually seasonal, morphing on males when it was time to impress the ladies (or intimidate rivals) and then absorbing the bone again post mating season.

My favorite Dino... Styracosaurus FTW!



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by spookfish

I have to say I agree with your sentiments. However a second image at the source article makes changes in the animal more obvious. Don't know how to embed an image so:


I have embedded the image here:





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join