Did anyone save the Dinosaur picture from Conservapedia?
Paul Ciszek
article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur
For those who did not get to see it, it showed Jesus sitting on the back
of an apatosaur. I forgot to save a copy. Did anyone else save it?
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
landotter
> I see that Conservapedia has removed the illustration from the Dinosaur
> article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur
>
> For those who did not get to see it, it showed Jesus sitting on the back
> of an apatosaur. I forgot to save a copy. Did anyone else save it?
this one?:
Paul L. Madarasz
perhaps among other things:
Jesus rides sidesaddle!
--
"How 'bout cuttin' that rebop?"
-- S. Kowalski
John Hatpin
And he's huge! Or apatosaurs were smaller than fossils would suggest,
but then, like radiocarbon dating and time, size was different back
then.
Oh, and it wasn't just Jesus. Adam and his six-pack were riding blue
apatosaurs while Jesus was still a twinkle in the eye of his Creator:
http://www.jesus21.com/writers/belinda/images/dinotitle.gif
--
John Hatpin
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Paul L. Madarasz wrote:
> > "landotter" <land...@gmail.com> wrote,
> >> this one?:
> >> http://www.evangelicalright.com/JesusDino.jpg
> > Jesus rides sidesaddle!
> And he's huge! Or apatosaurs were smaller than fossils would suggest,
> but then, like radiocarbon dating and time, size was different back
> then.
No, he's huge. He's MC 50-foot Jesus.
--
Huey
art...@yahoo.com
> >perhaps among other things:
>
> >>On Mar 1, 4:34 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >>> I see that Conservapedia has removed the illustration from the Dinosaur
> >>> article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur
>
> >>> For those who did not get to see it, it showed Jesus sitting on the back
> >>> of an apatosaur. I forgot to save a copy. Did anyone else save it?
>
> >>this one?:
>
> >>http://www.evangelicalright.com/JesusDino.jpg
>
> >Jesus rides sidesaddle!
>
> And he's huge! Or apatosaurs were smaller than fossils would suggest,
> but then, like radiocarbon dating and time, size was different back
> then.
>
> Oh, and it wasn't just Jesus. Adam and his six-pack were riding blue
> apatosaurs while Jesus was still a twinkle in the eye of his Creator:
How do you know it was an apatosaur? Could it be a young bronto?
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things:
>How do you know it was an apatosaur? Could it be a young bronto?
Didn't you get the memo?
Veronique
> On 1 Mar 2007 17:35:58 -0800, "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com>
> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
> >How do you know it was an apatosaur? Could it be a young bronto?
>
> Didn't you get the memo?
I was thinking it was more like a Camarsaurus.
But that's still One Big Jesus.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Bill Kinkaid
wrote:
>On Mar 1, 5:41 pm, Paul L. Madarasz <madpl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 1 Mar 2007 17:35:58 -0800, "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>>
>> >How do you know it was an apatosaur? Could it be a young bronto?
>>
>> Didn't you get the memo?
>
>I was thinking it was more like a Camarsaurus.
>
Looks more like a Firebirdsaurus.
--
Bill in Vancouver
Veronique
> On 1 Mar 2007 17:48:39 -0800, "Veronique" <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 1, 5:41 pm, Paul L. Madarasz <madpl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 1 Mar 2007 17:35:58 -0800, "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
> >> >How do you know it was an apatosaur? Could it be a young bronto?
>
> >> Didn't you get the memo?
>
> >I was thinking it was more like a Camarsaurus.
>
> Looks more like a Firebirdsaurus.
Jerry Bauer
(in article <1172820336....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
I wonder who will win?
Dilbert Firestorm
Lesmond
>On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 23:25:36 -0800, Veronique wrote
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/329cxe
>
>I wonder who will win?
Here's the real version:
http://www.morganshepherd.com/photogallery/15.jpg
http://www.morganshepherd.com/photogallery/2.jpg
--
Things fell apart with the alacrity of a cheetah.
John Hatpin
It's quite a bit more complex than that. Fossils of the animal were
discovered separately by different paleontologists and named
differently. Under the Linnaean rules, "apatosaur" got there first
and was hence the winner, taxonomically. There's stuff about a
misidentified skull, but ultimately it boils down to that.
Saying that there is "no such thing as a brontosaurus" is like saying
"there is no such thing as a cat or a moggy or a pussy - have to go,
I've got to feed the Felis domesticus". Behaviour like that will
attract unwelcome stares, and I advise against it.
--
John Hatpin
Peter Ward
Not from the felis domesticus, it won't.
--
Peter
I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
Paul Ciszek
In article <kntju2la94cm2kjrt...@4ax.com>,
John Hatpin <use...@jfhgetridofthisbitopkin.kaandthisbittooroo.co.uk> wrote:
>Dilbert Firestorm wrote:
>
>>art...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 1, 8:05 pm, John Hatpin
>>><use...@jfhgetridofthisbitopkin.kaandthisbittooroo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and it wasn't just Jesus. Adam and his six-pack were riding blue
>>>>apatosaurs while Jesus was still a twinkle in the eye of his Creator:
>>>
>>>How do you know it was an apatosaur? Could it be a young bronto?
>>>
>>there is no such thing as a brontosaurus. the identification was a mistake.
>
>It's quite a bit more complex than that. Fossils of the animal were
>discovered separately by different paleontologists and named
>differently. Under the Linnaean rules, "apatosaur" got there first
>and was hence the winner, taxonomically. There's stuff about a
>misidentified skull, but ultimately it boils down to that.
Those laws of nomenclature are inflexible and strict,
And it doesn't matter whether you agree;
What you name the critter first,
Whether better, bad, or worse,
Is gonna live into perpetuity.
Still, I'd rather call it "Brontosaur"
'Cause "Apatasaur" is a sore point with me.
--Dr. Jane (now John) Robinson, "I'm gonna call in Brontosaur", on the
album "Dr. Jane's Remains"
Bill Kinkaid
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle,
and thin again at the other end.
- Ann Elk (Miss)
--
Bill in Vancouver
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> Dilbert Firestorm wrote:
>
>> art...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 1, 8:05 pm, John Hatpin
>>> <use...@jfhgetridofthisbitopkin.kaandthisbittooroo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, and it wasn't just Jesus. Adam and his six-pack were riding blue
>>>> apatosaurs while Jesus was still a twinkle in the eye of his Creator:
>>> How do you know it was an apatosaur? Could it be a young bronto?
>>>
>> there is no such thing as a brontosaurus. the identification was a mistake.
>
> It's quite a bit more complex than that. Fossils of the animal were
> discovered separately by different paleontologists and named
> differently. Under the Linnaean rules, "apatosaur" got there first
> and was hence the winner, taxonomically. There's stuff about a
> misidentified skull, but ultimately it boils down to that.
Calling them Linnaean rules makes it sound as though Linnaeus
set them up. Actually they are rules propagated by the ICZN.
The specific rule in this case involves Junior and Senior
synonyms.
http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?article=23&nfv=
I used to teach this stuff.
charles
John Hatpin
Yeah, but that's all *her* theory.
--
John Hatpin
art...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:58:57 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Ciszek) wrote:
Sounds nice in theory.....
John Hatpin
Ah - I thought it was Linnaeus who came up with that rule. Thanks for
the correction.
Some day I must read up on that guy - I know too little about him.
Didn't he spend an enormous amount of time assigning names to species,
a bit like Dewey coming up with his system and then travelling the
world, reorganising books on library shelves?
--
John Hatpin
Dana Carpender
John Hatpin wrote:
That would be him, yes. Father of Taxonomy. Here's the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaeus
There's a wonderful statue of him at the Chicago Botanical Gardens:
http://www.chicagobotanic.org/sculpture/images/Linaeus.new.2.jpg
What you can't see in that photo is that there are reliefs of various
plants worked into the surface. Very cool.
Dana
Bill Turlock
Assume a semi-spherical Brontosaur...
Mike Kruger
> That would be him, yes. Father of Taxonomy. Here's the wikipedia
> entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaeus
>
> There's a wonderful statue of him at the Chicago Botanical Gardens:
> http://www.chicagobotanic.org/sculpture/images/Linaeus.new.2.jpg
>
> What you can't see in that photo is that there are reliefs of various
> plants worked into the surface. Very cool.
You can't see the scale of the statue very well, but it's 9 feet high, I
would guess.
Up until about the early 1990's, climbing on the statue was somewhere
between tolerated and subtle encouraged and it was usually covered with
children. Somewhere, I have pictures of my own young urchins perched on it
in various spots. Alas, no more -- it was out of character with the rest of
the garden to treat the statue as playground equipment, and it clearly
wasn't designed to current playground safety standards. In retrospect, I'm
surprised I let my kids climb up there.
The garden nearby is a taxonomic garden -- examples of various families are
planted together in each section so you can relatively easily see both the
common chacteristics of the family and the width of differences across
different species. It's a perfect place for such a statue.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Without trying to find my notes, which are probably somewhere
in a carton in the attic: quite a few people before Linnaeus
were into naming species. Carl Linnaeus, later Carl von Linne,
later Carolus Linnaeus, was the first to come up with a
logically consistent _System_ of classification that had:
[1] a hierarchy and [2] a place for every known plant and
animal with room for expansion for all yet-to-be-discovered
animals and plants. And even he didn't get it right on the
first try. His _Systema__Naturae_ went through several
editions, and it was only on the 10th try that he finally
got it right.
Oh wait, I just found an explanation on-line:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html
Looks like my memory wasn't too far off.
charles