Oldest dinosaur nests found in SA

2012-01-25 16:08

Johannesburg - An ancient dinosaur nesting site, the oldest ever found, has been excavated in the Free State, the University of the Witwatersrand said on Wednesday.

Paleontologists found clutches of eggs, many with embryos, as well as tiny dinosaur footprints.

Researchers said this was the oldest known evidence showing that dinosaur hatchlings remained at the nesting site long enough to at least double in size.

The nests were from the prosauropod dinosaur known as the Massospondylus and were 190-million-year-old.

Bruce Rubidge, director of the Bernard Price Institute at Wits, said the research project, at the Golden Gate Highlands National Park, had been underway since 2005.

"First it was the oldest dinosaur eggs and embryos, [that were discovered]; now it is the oldest evidence of dinosaur nesting behaviour."

At least ten nests were found at several levels. Each one had up to 34 round eggs in tightly-clustered clutches. The researchers said the distribution of the nests in the sediments showed the dinosaurs returned repeatedly to the site, and apparently nested together.

The research was led by Canadian palaeontologist, Robert Reisz, a professor of biology at the University of Toronto.

More nests

Hans-Dieter Sues from the Smithsonian Institute in the United States, Eric Roberts from James Cook University in Australia, and Adam Yates from Wits, were part of the team. Reisz said he suspected there were many more nests in the cliff still covered by tons of rock.

"We predict that many more nests will be eroded out in time as natural weathering processes continue."

The team's findings have been published in the current issue of the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

David Evans, a curator of Vertebrate Palaeontology at the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada, said that although the fossil record of dinosaurs was extensive, very little was known of their reproductive biology.

"This amazing series of nests gives us the first detailed look at dinosaur reproduction early in their evolutionary history," he said.

The fossils were found in sedimentary rocks that date from the early Jurassic period.

The Massospondylus was a relative of the giant, long-necked sauropods of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

  • The-third - 2012-01-25 16:15

    that's damn cool.

      Boer - 2012-01-25 23:52

      Is that the nest where Julius Malema crept out of.

      Seja - 2012-01-26 07:45

      @Boer you're just too preoccupied with Julius,the use of that name has now become extremely boring - surely there's something else you can comment about!?! Or is you knowlegde and thinking so limited that you've been brainwashed into only thinking about Julius??

  • Alva - 2012-01-25 16:16

    Wow! Amazing!!!

  • Zoolie - 2012-01-25 16:17

    I knew it. This country didnt belong to the Khoi-san or the Zulu`s or the whites. It belongs to mother nature and everyone is welcome !!!!

      Celtis - 2012-01-25 16:27

      No, the Massospondylus ate all the locals and died of food poisoning.

      Whitty - 2012-01-25 16:29

      Do not be so quick to conclude that, wait and see them 'THE USSUAL' soon someone will paint the colour on the eggs.Remember on news24 we have lots of twisters and claimants. Well done we are back on the radder, toarism! money is coming.

      Sunett - 2012-01-25 16:30

      @ Stinkhout - Lol!!

      Zoolie - 2012-01-25 16:46

      @Stinkhout, in that case it did a p*ss poor job at it !!!!

      Herman - 2012-01-25 16:49

      Anc big brothers......still same mentality

      Aubrey - 2012-01-25 18:57

      My friend you are so right. We are on this earth for a blink of a eye lid. One cannot believe mans small mindlessness.

      Ann - 2012-01-27 14:59


  • J-Man - 2012-01-25 16:20


  • Trevor - 2012-01-25 16:21

    Pity there no photo news24 awesome find

      abongilevalent.jaza - 2012-01-25 16:26

      dats grt bt we 2 c some photos 2 prove de evidence.

      Bokfan - 2012-01-25 16:28

      C'mon dude its 190 million years old. I'm pretty sure cameras hadn't been invented yet. >

      brandon.e.botha - 2012-01-25 16:55

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:11

      Brandon - cool! thanks

      Tashie.lc1 - 2012-01-25 17:51

      Thanks Brandon. I think this article as well as the photo's made my day. HOW COOL IS THAT?!

      Wimpie - 2012-01-27 16:23


  • Stephen - 2012-01-25 16:21

    190 million years old? Impossible the earth is only 6 thousand years old.

      Nick - 2012-01-25 16:28

      I really hope that is sarcasm...

      Oscar - 2012-01-25 16:31

      Yeah right stephen and I suppose you think Moodley is innocent and the world is flat

      E - 2012-01-25 16:37

      evidence, please

      Herman - 2012-01-25 16:45

      Not 6000 years, at least 30000 years. Scientist has done C-14 tests on several dino's and found the ages quite more close to home( ). I wonder how did they decide it is now 190 million years old, was it again the geologist telling the paleontologist the age of the dino-eggs, or was it vice versa? There is even a case where soft tissue was found in the femur of a T-rex, and it is published in the science magazine. Anybody can google that. But, the real evolutionist will never C-14 date a dino, since that will expose all their lies regarding the age of the dino's.

      Heiku - 2012-01-25 16:50

      Herman: c-14 dating is carbon dating.... you make it sound like some kind of new discovery. LOL

      Johan - 2012-01-25 16:56

      Stephen's not joking. He's from the US of A where he votes for them Republicans

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:03

      Herman You don't use C-14 dating on fossils older than +/- 65 000 years. And your reference? Not exactly New Scientist now is it? (or anything reputable for that matter)

      theandystokes - 2012-01-25 17:08

      Everyone's an expert... Google says so.

      Herman - 2012-01-25 17:20

      If you are believing everybody that dinos is really 65+ million years old, yes, but that does not mean you can't do a c-14 test. If it yields repeatable results, what then? I know c-14 works up to 50K, and currently people are doing c-14 tests, and they do get data from it.

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:23

      "but that does not mean you can't do a c-14 test" Of course it does! The half life of the C-14 isotope is too short for dates past 65 000 + "if it yields repeatable results, what then? " According to whom? Your pseudo-science site you mentioned? "currently people are doing c-14 tests, and they do get data from it." If its tests on things older than 65 000+ years the data they get is meaningless.

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:25

      Seriously, Herman Go speak to any credible geologist about radiometric dating. Forget about dating fossils. If you believe the earth is around 30000 years old a geologist is the person to speak to to convince you otherwise.

      Herman - 2012-01-25 17:26

      Victor, look at the references i gave below. You have not convinced me.

      Herman - 2012-01-25 17:32

      I did not say the earth is 30000 year old. I said at least. It could be millions of years. What i am saying is that i don't believe the nonsens scientists is dishing up without any schred of prove.

      Delusion - 2012-01-25 18:53

      Herman, What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way - Bertrand Russell

      mbossenger - 2012-01-25 21:37

      Er, Herman - do you realise that the lady who discoverd the "soft tissue" - Mary Schweitzer - is a christian who completely accepts the earth being 14 odd billion years old and has no issue with dating techniques? She also hates creationists using her work to try prove a young earth.

      mbossenger - 2012-01-25 21:54

      Herman - carbon dating wouldn't work on dinosaurs. The C14 half life is around 5,000 years or so if I remeber correctly, so carbon dating is only accurate up to 50,000 years or so. Dinosaurs are much older than that so other dating techniques muust be used.

      Ben - 2012-01-26 09:38


      mbossenger - 2012-01-26 10:19

      Oops - my mistake - earth is about 4.5 billion years old, the universe is of the order of 14 billion years

  • rbphiri - 2012-01-25 16:23

    There's a lot of old skeletons in Malema's closet, I'm suprised that Hawk Paleontologists haven't found that. Aaah there is a level of happiness when you can link any story with Julius. Now there must just be a story on leaking septic tanks, than Im ready to have a ball. But jokes aside this discovery once again will put Africa on the map (even though it's already on the map).

      Kosie - 2012-01-26 09:30

      at least this time it will be because ofa good reason.

  • Bokfan - 2012-01-25 16:26

    Damn isnt this the spot where the Yob League dug up its economic policies

  • Martin - 2012-01-25 16:28


  • Innis - 2012-01-25 16:28

    Ons soek foto's!

  • Sunett - 2012-01-25 16:29

    OMW! That's awesome! Very very cool...!

  • E=MC2 - 2012-01-25 16:32

    190-million-year-old....not even an "about" or "approximately"? wow, science is just amazing.

      pvuuren - 2012-01-25 16:53

      Dude, even if you miss it with 20 million years, its pretty closely dated...

      zane.zeiler - 2012-01-25 17:27

      Amazing indeed, if it wasn't for science we'd all still be living in caves, eating raw meat and reading bibles...

      mbossenger - 2012-01-25 22:07

      E=MC2 - of course all such readings are subject to a level of uncertainty, and I'm sure in the journal these findings are published in the error margin is quoted. As a matter of interest, how big do you expect the error margin to be?

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-26 09:16

      i just find it funny how they can with an apparent amount of confidence state exactly how old it is, when even evolutionists themselves debate how old the world really is. Just as much as evolutionists are quick to point out that they would require definite proof of their being a God before believing (yourself included mbossenger), i would also like a single unanimous answer as to how old the earth really is, instead of all the probably’s, possibly’s & abouts. Please dont start bashing me about my religion now; i too also have unanswered questions about plenty of things, but I've had more definite spiritual things happen in my life to lead me to believe that there is a God, as to make me believe that there isnt...

      Ben - 2012-01-26 09:46

      4.54 Billion years old. Wiki "Age of Earth". Lots of links and info for you. Radiometric dating and so forth. If you don't trust the info on wiki, I'm sure there's books you can get from your local library on the subject.

      mbossenger - 2012-01-26 10:23

      I'm not aware of any debate regarding the age of the earth - as I stated, the only uncertainty lies in the error margins of the measurement, which exists with any measurement.

  • Wayne - 2012-01-25 16:33

    Where are the damned photo's?

  • justin.pretorius - 2012-01-25 16:38

    Any photos?

      Mark - 2012-01-25 18:59

  • Victor - 2012-01-25 16:39

    Excellent find

  • Thulani - 2012-01-25 16:45

    Stephen is correct 6000 years is all we know of, the rest if is fairy tale ' looong time ago far far away. nothing scientific about the millions of years

      Heiku - 2012-01-25 16:52


      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:15

      Thulani. Care to provide evidence for your statement?

      Delusion - 2012-01-25 18:59

      Thulani, 6000 years is all you were told about. Hearsay based on the myths of a bronze age tribe of primitive cattle sacrificing herders who believed all animals lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

      mbossenger - 2012-01-25 21:39

      Thulani - they say the standard of science eduction in this country is low... thanks for proving the point

      Ben - 2012-01-26 09:48

      Holy balls... Thulani...good luck with the rest of your life... It's gonna get rough.

  • birkettN - 2012-01-25 16:46

    190 million years and there are still footprints. lol

      zane.zeiler - 2012-01-25 17:25

      Are you gonna stand there and tell me you never heard of Trace Fossils i.e. ichnofossils? I mean jesus, we learn't this stuff in standard grade geology in school...

      E=MC2 - 2012-01-26 09:17

      hondbyt, you're one of those trolls looking to get people irritated hey?

  • Lorenzo - 2012-01-25 16:50

    That is Awesome!! Wow!

  • Herman - 2012-01-25 16:50

    At last some progress in SA!

  • Kyle - 2012-01-25 16:57

    In case anyone is looking for pictures check out this bbc article. I can't say of course if the writer inserted the proper picture as the caption doesn't say:

      Kyle - 2012-01-25 17:20

      oi, you stole my name

      Kyle - 2012-01-25 21:03

      I thought I had an original name :(

      Ben - 2012-01-26 09:49


  • Herman - 2012-01-25 16:59

    I would like to see the prove of this date, as well as the credencials of the test facility. I sound to far fetched for me. Imagine after 190 million years you can still detect footprints? Like they say, talk is cheap, but money buy the whiskey. We have been sold a lot of this hogwash of dates without a schred of prove, for to long. Come on scientist, stop asking argeologists for the age, but bring something more credible and substancial to the table.

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:06

      The "prove"? "argeologists"? "credencials"? Urgh, spelling aside: "We have been sold a lot of this hogwash of dates without a schred of prove, for to long" Radiometric dating works. No, scientists don't only use carbon-14. You need to read other material than the conspiracy theory nonsense you referenced earlier

      Herman - 2012-01-25 17:08

      Do i, why don't you start to google on the internet, and find out for yourselves. I can give you references from scientific papers if you want.

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:08

      I can't believe I'm feeding the troll, but here goes - some reading matter for you "For fossils greater than 50,000 years old, the age of the fossil is found indirectly by determing the age of the rock associated with the fossil" "How do scientists date older fossils? Although the half-life of carbon-14 makes it unreliable for dating fossils over about 50,000 years old, there are other isotopes scientists use to date older artifacts. These isotopes have longer half-lives and so are found in greater abundance in older fossils." Some of these other isotopes include: Potassium-40 found in your body at all times; half-life = 1.3 billion years Uranium-235; half-life = 704 million years Uranium-238; half-life = 4.5 billion years Thorium-232; half-life = 14 billion years Rubidium-87; half-life = 49 billion years

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:09

      "I sound to far fetched for me" The only line in your post we both agree on.....

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:14

      Herman Please do - your statement that the earth is only 30000 years old would be a starting point. Also note, when people mention scientific papers they mean scientific papers, written by scientists, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Don't believe everything you see on the internet. Check credentials first.

      Herman - 2012-01-25 17:16

      I can give you the following references: 1. - there is references to her papers as well. 2. 3. and there is a lot more. There is even pictures of them on cave paintings and on a temple wall in cambodia, and there is a lot more.

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:17

      Another great site for you to read up on real science regarding the age of the earth:

      Victor - 2012-01-25 17:21 Same one you gave previously! let me repeat "when people mention scientific papers they mean scientific papers, written by scientists, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. " Is a pseudo-science website. There is no dispute amongst mainstream scientists about evolution. It also has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand and is a "red herring". We were talking about radiometric dating and the age of the earth This again has nothing to do with the issue at hand! "Mary Higby Schweitzer is a paleontologist at North Carolina State University known for leading the groups which discovered the remains of blood cells in dinosaur fossils and later discovered soft tissue remains in the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen MOR 1125,[1][2] as well as evidence that the specimen was a pregnant female when she died.[3] More recently, Schweitzer's work has shown molecular similarities in Tyrannosaurus remains and chickens, providing further evidence of the bird-dinosaur connection." What is the problem here? Why refer me to this site?

      Herman - 2012-01-25 17:24

      Well, i only look at scientific facts. You cannot use the rock strata to date fossils, unless they are vulcanic. There is lots of prove that the dating they use to date that rock is not accurate at all. There is an example where scientist dated vulcanic rock from Hawai that erupted in the 1800's, and got dates of more that 1mil years old. Not good enough for me.

      Herman - 2012-01-25 17:28

      The reason i refer you to the site is to show you that soft tissue is extracted from a T-rex, err...that is 65 million years old...very hard to believe in my view.

      Nick - 2012-01-25 20:17

      Victor, you deserve a medal for being able to deal with this troll so well :)

      Delusion - 2012-01-25 20:49

      Herman seems to be a fascinating mamal. He readily accepts selected "evidence" congruent with his pre-ordained conclusions. Evidence published in reputable scientific journals by the planet's best experts at the most reputable institutions are rejected by Herman - who seems to know better than these fools... He clearly lacks the basics in dating and relative dating - yet is overly opinionated about this field of science! Fascinating...

      Kosie - 2012-01-26 09:37

      The fact that you two are arguing about this as well as a lot of other people just proves that nobody knows for sure... and everybody is just speculating. there is no fact about any of this as every scientist disagrees with each other.

      Ben - 2012-01-26 09:53

      The Troll is strong in this one...

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:30

      No Kosie - we know for sure. The fact that you cannot get it into your evolved brain because you have a religion block in the way is not our problem. Victor has set out the stall, please bring something better than evangelical theme park directors to the discussion.

  • Zion - 2012-01-25 17:20

    That Dinosaur nest was found in the parliamentary room where the cabinet congregates. Guess who the baby dinosaur was.

  • KallieHungBal - 2012-01-25 17:42

    Bloody fantastic super discovery. Well done guys!!

  • gouws2 - 2012-01-25 17:54

    Eish..... Im am not liking the storeee of the pre colonialist coming here and leaving eggs and footprints everywhere like this, like this, like this, he must not undermine the agenda with the debates and things like todays bastard agents! get him to vote for the ANC.

  • Leon - 2012-01-25 18:37

    huh? you mean to say the anc werent for all of eternity the only inhabitants of africa? lies!!! But, does this mean DEE, DDEE and DDDEE?

  • Delusion - 2012-01-25 20:52

    Herman seems to be a fascinating mamal. He readily accepts selected "evidence" congruent with his pre-ordained conclusions. Universally accepted evidence, as published in reputable scientific journals by the planet's best experts at the most reputable institutions are rejected by Herman - who seems to know better than these fools... He clearly lacks the basics in dating and relative dating - yet is overly opinionated about this field of science!

  • Kenole - 2012-01-25 21:50

    C'mon guys, where do they get 190-million years? Today we are in 2012, where the hell comes that? They are smoking rooibos tea.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 12:24

      Neither do u or any1 delutional. So go read a comic or sumthin. Wait! U believe every word in ther don't u?

  • Billy - 2012-01-25 22:26

    I think they have actually uncovered the last sitting of the Free State National Party caucus, that was meeting to discuss their future, when the roof caved in.

  • Claudius - 2012-01-26 06:50

    160 million,not likely,firstly,did the scientist know what the corbon presensage was 160 million years ago,i don`t think so,secondly,as a Christian the bible time line is about 7000 years up to date give or take a few years,but the bible does state,that the earth was coverd with water,but for how long,it does not say,so the earth could be very old,even trillions of years,but as far as it goes for life on this planet,it is about 7000 years according to the bible time line.Dinosaurs did live,read JOB 40 and 41,that is proof that GOD did greate dinosaurs,but due to man and climate change,they died out,at least the big one`s,small one`s stil live today,crocodiles are one of them,how do i know,scaly skin just as the big dinosaurs.

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-26 08:22

      If dinosaurs existed 7000 years ago, they would be living among us today. Dinosaurs died out due to man? Huh? Dude, seriously, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. Have your opinions about earth and religion, but please don't try to mix them with science or sell them to people who have more than a very average IQ

      Ever - 2012-01-26 09:46

      Soo much ignorance, soo little time. Sigh.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:31

      There is no pill that will fix stupid

      mbossenger - 2012-01-26 10:34

      This would not have been dated using carbon dating as carbon dating is only relaible ap to about 50,000 years.

      Kyle - 2012-01-26 12:04

      @Claudius - I'll ignore the other crap as that has been covered by others but this "small one`s stil live today,crocodiles are one of them,how do I know,scaly skin just as the big dinosaurs." crocodiles are not and have never been classed as dinosaurs.... crocodile were around at the time of the dinosaurs but they are reptiles.... not dinosaurs...... I have to wonder how people with such limited brain capacity actually manage to get out of bed in the mornings.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 12:19

      urs sounds much more convincing than ur other hudlum friens on here Claudius. These people r quick 2 tell u that ur talking crap. But I fail 2 c thar answers. Ther lil theories. Comon people. Hmm.... R u guys realy educated or......

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 12:32

      Kyle a croc doas come from the dinosaur family. Just a tad more info and ul b ontop of ur game. But gud annalysis thow.

  • Nico - 2012-01-26 08:18

    @Herman , you mentioned :"Come on scientist, stop asking argeologists for the age". This is incorrect, physicists do the direct dating techniques. Archaeologists must ensure well documented uncontaminated samples reaches the laboratory. They also wont do C14 dating on Dino's because C14's dating range is only about 60 000 years ago. But I am waisting my time now as you basically only posted nonsense anyway.

  • francdore - 2012-01-26 08:35

    It's funny that they didn't mention dinosaurs in the Bible. You would have imagined that one of the disciples would have mentioned a huge damn lizard crossing his path.

      Kosie - 2012-01-26 09:42

      they do, go read the bible before you post something you don't know about,JOB 40 & 41(that is once where I can think of as I haven't read the whole bible yet) they also speak about "giants" and there were fossils found about them too.

  • daniel.oosthuizen - 2012-01-26 09:06

    I love the fact that some Christians still believe that God didn't create dinosaurs and that the earth is only 6000 years old! Do they still believe the earth is flat?

      Kosie - 2012-01-26 09:43

      nobody said God didn't create dinosaurs, get facts straight.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:37

      In the beginning — specifically on October 23, 4004 B.C., at noon — out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang. The bang was followed by cosmological inflation. God saw that the Big Bang was very big, too big for creatures that could worship him, so He created the earth. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He commanded hydrogen atoms (which He created out of Quarks and other subatomic goodies) to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process release energy in the form of light. And the light maker he called the sun, and the process He called fusion. And He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:37

      And God said, Let there be lots of fusion light makers in the sky. Some of these fusion makers appear to be more than 4,004 light years from Earth. In fact, some of the fusion makers He grouped into collections He called galaxies, and these appeared to be millions and even billions of light years from Earth, so He created “tired light” — light that slows down through space — so that the 4004 B.C. creation myth might be preserved. And created He many wondrous splendors, including Red Giants, White Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, Nova and Supernova, Worm Holes, and even Black Holes out of which nothing can escape. But since God cannot be constrained by nothing (can God make a planet so big that he could not lift it?), He created Hawking radiation through which information can escape from Black Holes. This made God even more tired than tired light, and the evening and the morning were the second day.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:37

      And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the continents drift apart by plate tectonics. He decreed sea floor spreading would create zones of emergence, and He caused subduction zones to build mountains and cause earthquakes. In weak points in the crust God created volcanic islands, where the next day He would place organisms that were similar to but different from their relatives on the continents, so that still later created creatures called humans would mistake them for evolved descendants. And in the land God placed fossil fuels, natural gas, and other natural resources for humans to exploit, but not until after Day Six. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:38

      And God saw that the land was lonely, so He created animals bearing their own kind, declaring Thou shalt not evolve into new species, and thy equilibrium shall not be punctuated. And God placed into the land’s strata, fossils that appeared older than 4004 B.C. And the sequence resembled descent with modification. And the evening and morning were the fourth day.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:38

      And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, the fishes. And God created great whales whose skeletal structure and physiology were homologous with the land mammals he would create later that day. Since this caused confusion in the valley of the shadow of doubt God brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, declaring that microevolution was permitted, but not macroevolution. And God said, “Natura non facit saltum” — Nature shall not make leaps. And the evening and morning were the fifth day.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:38

      And God created the pongidids and hominids with 98 percent genetic similarity, naming two of them Adam and Eve, who were anatomically fully modern humans. In the book in which God explained how He did all this, in chapter one He said he created Adam and Eve together out of the dust at the same time, but in chapter two He said He created Adam first, then later created Eve out of one of Adam’s ribs. This caused further confusion in the valley of the shadow of doubt, so God created Bible scholars and theologians to argue the point.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:39

      And in the ground placed He in abundance teeth, jaws, skulls, and pelvises of transitional fossils from pre-Adamite creatures. One he chose as his special creation He named Lucy. And God realized this was confusing, so he created paleoanthropologists to sort it out. And just as He was finishing up the loose ends of the creation God realized that Adam’s immediate descendants who lived as farmers and herders would not understand inflationary cosmology, global general relativity, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, population genetics, and evolutionary theory, so He created creation myths. But there were so many creation stories throughout the land that God realized this too was confusing, so he created anthropologists, folklorists, and mythologists to settle the issue. By now the valley of the shadow of doubt was overrunneth with skepticism, so God became angry, so angry that God lost His temper and cursed the first humans, telling them to go forth and multiply (but not in those words). They took God literally and 6,000 years later there are six billion humans. And the evening and morning were the sixth day. By now God was tired, so God said, “Thank me its Friday,” and He made the weekend. It was a good idea. - MICHAEL SHERMER

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 11:43

      Daniel / Delusion - come boet... did you not pick up the dripping sarcasm of my post? Snap TF out of it. My post shows what complete garbage the creation myth is.

      daniel.oosthuizen - 2012-01-26 11:57

      okay I just read through your comments Gordon, and they're actually funny. haha.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 12:08

      SO you commented without reading the information first? That is as bad as the other side you are shouting about.

      daniel.oosthuizen - 2012-01-26 12:40

      yes admittedly!

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-26 17:03

      No Daniel. They don't. I'm a christian. And I know ther was life b4 our world that wev know 4 6000years. Hmm.... Maybe don't generalise.

  • Fredster - 2012-01-26 09:27

    Good find and a nice story. Just a pity they spoil it by adding: 190-million-year-old.

      mbossenger - 2012-01-26 10:24

      Evidence can be a bitch, eh?

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 08:31

      Its amazing what people believe. If sumone sells crap. A 1000 would wana buy it. Strange how stereotypical people hav become. Allmost like penguins don't u think?

  • Gordon - 2012-01-26 10:22

    Very neat, especially considering the number of people in the FS that think the world is 6000 years old and was made in 7 days. (oh, I forgot, God planted the nests and invented Paleontology just to create news stories in 2012)

      Johann - 2012-01-26 13:25

      Isn't time man made ?

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 13:28

      no, but the measure of it is.... (that should keep you busy most of the afternoon)

      Johann - 2012-01-26 13:33

      So you agree that man created days to measure a time cycle ?

      Johann - 2012-01-26 13:35

      So recorded history are roughly how many years in your books ?

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 17:33

      Cool Johann. Jy laat di ou sy gat0sien.

  • Clay - 2012-01-26 10:58

    Pathetic how everything needs to turn into a debate about race. We're dealing with dinosaurs!

      daniel.oosthuizen - 2012-01-26 12:33

      yeah next it will be blamed on apartheid!

  • UbuntuElphie - 2012-01-26 13:18

    [1/2] @Kosie: Realy? You want to claim the Behemoth & Leviathan to be dinosaurs that lived alongside man? Right, let's talk. If what you say is correct, would asking that you produce fossilised remains be too much, preferably from the Jordan River area as, according to Job 40:23, it did hang out there (at least enough to have the water "surge against its mouth"). While we're at it, you don't mind me having the fossils carbon-dated, do u? Yr partner-in-ignorance, Claudius (u quoted the same bible passage so, naturally, I assumed), mentioned that life only began 7000 years ago, and, while the actual date that Job lived isn't directly given, clues place him somewhere around 2150BCE (and, as Scripture refers to the Behemoth in present tense, I assume it was around in Job's time), so I hope, for yr theory's sake, that the results come in at around 4160 years old, but certainly no older than 7000 years, or else yr creature would be an abomination, having not been created by God. Actually, scratch that. I did a little more digging (no pun intended) and, from what I can gather through references to the Behemoth & Leviathan, there are no fossils to find. I have found no reference to these creatures in the pural, leading me to believe that they must be very unique, not to mention, very old &, according to the Bible, very much alive, seeing as they are due to engage in battle at the end of time, at which point, their Creator is supposed to slay them. So, no fossils yet. Sorry. (TBC)

  • UbuntuElphie - 2012-01-26 13:19

    [2/2] This does, however, raise questions as to what the heck all the other paleontological discoveries are, if the only two dinosauses are still alive. But never fear, I have good news. I know where the Behemoth can be found, more or less. According to the apocryphal Book of Enoch 60:7-8 (Enoch was Noah's great-grandfather, in case you didn't know), it lives in a desert, east of the Garden of Eden. However, if Wikipedia is correct, it won't be easy to find. As if locating Eden isn't going to be difficult enough, this desert just so happens to be invisible... but I am always up for a challenge. Care to join me on my quest to find this magnificent beast? I could certainly do with yr help. After all, as mentioned, the desert is invisible but you seem to be an expert at seeing things that aren't there. Well, you certainly have a knack for that when reading the Bible. I think I have made my point. Don't you hate it when a non-Christian uses yr own Bible against you? Look, all sarcasm aside, I do believe in a Higher Power. After all, something omnipotent had to get the ball rolling on our existance but, clearly, I give my Higher Power more credit than you (and I am referring to both you & Claudius but choose to ignore Herman completely because, clearly, he is an idiot, hardly worth even this dismissal) give yr God (who could actually be seen as one in the same but that is another discussion for another time... get in touch if you want to chat.)

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 13:38

      "After all, something omnipotent had to get the ball rolling on our existance" Really? And you know this how? Just a feeling you have or do you have supernatural powers that allows you to know this? The natural world is far more impressive and expansive than you give it credit for, to the point of making the need for a supernatural power utterly redundant.

      UbuntuElphie - 2012-01-26 13:57

      I did say that *I* believe. I didn't say that you had to agree with me. What I choose to believe should not affect you in anyway. Similarly, I don't expect the beliefs of 2 people I addressed in my post to affect me but I had an opinion and I passed it, just as you passed yours. I don't believe that there is a right or wrong belief-system (and, yes, I consider atheism to be a belief-system). Whatever it is that you believe is what you will find waiting for you on the other side. As a sidebar, I do find it amazing, however, that Christianity and Atheism are the only two belief systems that try to convert people to their belief. Christians have missionaries and bible-punchers; Atheists have fanatics running around calling those who do believe stupid for wasting their time believing in something that doesn't exist. Oh well, I guess everything has to balance out.

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 14:11

      Saying you believe something is lovely, but it is just an idea. Ideas need to be challenged. We you state "had to" you are making a statement of FACT, for which you have no evidence. I am calling you out on that. Convince me... the door is open. Just saying you believe it means nothing, it doesn't move the conversation anywhere. It stops the debate. "Christianity and Atheism are the only two belief systems that try to convert people to their belief." - never seen the Islam channel, bought pencil from a Monk or had knock on the door from the Mormons or JH people? Atheism is a belief system like NOT snorting cocaine is an addiction. There is nothing there... I promise you. The real issue is that people treat faith and belief as a divine right NOT to have to explain themselves. To do so requires that you must suspend all rational thought and apply a set of supernatural, nonsensical rules that fall apart on the slightest inspection.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-26 17:31

      Good news 4 u sunshine! God believes in u. So ther u go. Kick and scream against it. But that's a Fact!

      Gordon - 2012-01-26 20:44

      but it is quite clear that I am going to hell. Could you make up your mind?? Go read the Dictators Handbook and then compare it to what you are saying.

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-27 13:43

      Gordon, in the immortal words of Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

  • Martin J Muller - 2012-01-26 16:38

    I think these paleontologists r talkin nonsense. Nothing on this earth could survive the elements 4 200mil years. I think the more zeros they add. The more bucks they get 4 ther storie. So no. Dink julle sit di pot mis manne!!!

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-27 07:06

      Is that your religious opinion or your scientific opinion? Or is it the same opinion?

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-27 13:28

      Delusion I think ur name speaks 4 itself. And antithesis. Ther r no scientific evaluation involved here. As nobody living 2day was ther 2mil years ago

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-27 13:38

      So Martin, anything more than a 120 years back does not exist, as in your immortal words "nobody living 2day was ther"? Amazing.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-28 10:39

      No. But my gran was. And her gran. And hers. I no wher the human race started. 6000years ago. 265mil years ago?????? Say it slowly. Real slow. And think about it.

      Gordon - 2012-01-28 19:56

      D-I-N-O-S-A-U-R-S If it is out of your range, just give it up.

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-30 08:20

      Martin, it must have come as a real surprise to the Chinese who were developing agriculture, to the Egyptians, who were enveloping animal husbandry, and to various other ancient civilizations and cultures, who were either developing astronomy, agriculture or advanced architectural principles - all (much) more than 6000 years ago. It must have come as a real shock to them that they were busy doing these things before the world was even created. Get an education, or if you are unwilling, keep your rather unlettered opinion to yourself.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 11:18

      And ur point is? That ur stupid remarks make u feel like crap. Let me tell u cupcake. Ther is no education on what haPpend 200mil years ago. Its mostly speculation. Like idiots like u question the bible when scrolls found tell u everything ther is 2 know. But u stil question. So clever trevor. Keep u stupid statements 4 urself. Specialy if u don't hav an ounce of proof. So go back 2 school. Kicik ur teatchers ass. Cause they were feeding u crap. And u bitter person. U should realy get a life, instead of being so rude 2 others. I'm intitles 2 my own opimions. And as a profeesor. I think I do a lil more reading than u.

      Endof - 2012-01-30 11:35

      @Martin, what a well thought out and constructed response. I'm sure AntiThesis must be shivering at the thought of engaging your intellectual prowess. I've never met a Professor who can't even spell the word! Seriously, you are out of your depth here by quite a considerable margin.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 11:45

      And I suppose ur a genius? Gods assistant perhaps. So tell me genious. How do u measure a bones age? Comon! Don't fail me now. U morons hav the answers rite? Don't b wrong now. I'll b very dissapointed.

      Endof - 2012-01-30 13:18

      Compared to you, I think my slobbering dog would look like a genius.

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-30 14:06

      Dear Martin, Of course you utterly fail to realize or understand the point I am trying to make. If the world is 6000 years old, how do you account for ancient civilizations that existed 10,000 years ago, of which we have vast amounts of evidence and some of whom we even have their heritage in various forms visible today. "when scrolls found tell u everything ther is 2 know" You seem to either know extremely little about the origins of your own religion's sacred text, or conveniently chose to ignore it. Do you know that there is no original manuscripts on which the new testament is based? and "everything ther is 2 know"? Wow, is the world flat where you live? Almost every detail we find in the bible is historically, geographically, statistically and logistically incorrect or impossible. But that of course makes no difference to you, as this incoherent piece of literature itself tells you it is correct and true.... Of course you are intitles(sic) to you own opinion - that doesn't make it correct or less ignorant though. A professor? I almost died laughing. Pray, do tell what academic field you are a senior and tenured educator and expert in? Especially seen in the light of the fact that you can't even spell profeesor(sic)

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-30 14:15

      "How do u measure a bones age?" A bone? Or a fossil? I presume you are referring to Carbon-14 dating - slight problem, as C-14 dating can only be used on samples 58,000 to 62,000 years old. I do suggest you read up on the basic principles of radiometric dating, or here is an article specifically directed at people like you: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 14:44

      Not a problem. I might misspell cause I type 2 fast. But atleast I don't hav a misconception. If u r tryin 2 persuade me. Well done. U failed in ur attempt. Big words can 2 hav little volume.

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-30 14:57

      Persuade you?? I would never even attempt that. I have however given clear arguments and questions directed at you, and you have failed to rebut, reply or offer counter arguments. Until such time as you respond to me in a proper and constructive manner and refrain from ad hominem attacks, I will simply make you of as an ignorant bigot. If this is not the case, please provide evidence to the contrary.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 17:04

      No! I don't hav 2 provide u with anything. Ur welcome 2 think what u want. As do I. Ur the 1 that replied on my comment first. 2 prove me wrong rite? U failed honey. Simple as that. I believe in what I say. And u believe ur......stuff. Kapish?

      Marius - 2012-01-30 20:12

      So to summarize then, not only are you an ignorant bigot, but also a lair, and I will claim that position (about you) until you can prove the opposite.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 20:31

      Sweet cheeks. If it makes u sleep better at night. Or blows ur hair back. Cool maN.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-31 07:31

      En Marius. Jyt n bigot in jou broek.

  • Endof - 2012-01-27 14:40

    Great find regarding the dinosaurs, but I am utterly flabbergasted at the stupidity of some of the people commenting here. Are these people being homeschooled by Kent Hovind or what? I shudder to think that most of them may be breeding as well. Either that, or this is trollville!

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 11:50

      Or mayb u stil live in a cave?

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 12:06

      Let me break it down 4 u. Dinosaurs lived no longer than a 1000 years ago. Bone doesn't last that long under ground. Its like the same people that want us 2 believe that ther r life on other planets.and that in a 1000years from now, humans will b 50feet tall? Comon!!! Seriously?

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-30 14:56

      Martin, do you even understand the concept of fossilization?

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 17:06

      Yes. But not 200mil years. I believe all the crap. But not the millions. End of story!

      Marius - 2012-01-30 20:16

      Martin, do you discard the millions based on your extensive scientific research and experience, or because the "millions " does not fit into your religious worldview?

  • Darryl - 2012-01-27 14:48

    very cool

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-31 13:11


  • Tanie - 2012-01-27 14:58

    wow wow wow,,,well done you guys.....keep the location top secrete otherwise man will go there and f..k things up as always....

  • Bridget - 2012-01-28 10:47


      AntiThesis - 2012-01-30 08:21

      Yes, various people have posted this link:

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-31 13:09


  • Martin J Muller - 2012-01-30 15:08

    Let me xplain what I hav learnt on this matter. And if u can't b civil. Keep ur comments 2 urself. Between Genesis 1.1 en 1.2, ther r a few thousand years that has elapsed. And in this time, ther were the pre historic creatures. Then came what people call the big bang. Predomanantly known as a paradigm shift. In witch the earth moved out of its orbit. I don't know how much. But in this time. Everything was destroyed. All life on earth. That is why fossils r still 2day found in places like Siberia. A desolate place wher these creatures would never hav roamed. Then Gen 2, came the creation of our xcistance. God was not happy with the old world he created. And thus, created a new 1. Destroyd,rebuilt. And probly soon 2 b destroyed again. Ok. Now listen. I'm not saying all this is so. This is how I learnt it. And how I understand it. And kinda makes sense. Ok. Let's call it my opinion then shall we....

      AntiThesis - 2012-01-31 07:12

      What a load of hogwash. The big bang after the earth exist? "the earth moved out of its orbit." No, it never did. "This is how I learnt it." Who ever learned you this nonsense must be kept away from the children. Have you religious opinion by all means. But do not try and use it describe the natural world or comment on anything remotely scientific, as it just makes you look silly.

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-31 08:28

      Oh get yee behind me satan!!!

      Martin J Muller - 2012-01-31 08:31

      U bloody ignaramous!!! Go away!!

  • pages:
  • 1