|
|
Post by triceratops on Sept 17, 2009 4:10:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Sept 17, 2009 4:23:46 GMT
^ I have the whole set - they are very nice. A little small, but very nice.
There is an Archaeopteryx, Rhamphoryncus, Coelophysis, and Pterodactylus kochi, adult and juvenile if I remember correctly. (They are up in my living room)
|
|
|
|
Post by triceratops on Sept 17, 2009 5:26:36 GMT
^ I have the whole set - they are very nice. A little small, but very nice. There is an Archaeopteryx, Rhamphoryncus, Coelophysis, and Pterodactylus kochi, adult and juvenile if I remember correctly. (They are up in my living room) yeah~one set is 6 pic. very beautiful~ |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 17, 2009 19:31:27 GMT
Wow, these are nice. Any websites that sell them internationally? I like also that they refer to Archaeopteryx as a 'flying dinosaur' ;D...which is correct of course!
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 17, 2009 21:09:43 GMT
Wow, these are nice. Any websites that sell them internationally? I like also that they refer to Archaeopteryx as a 'flying dinosaur' ;D...which is correct of course! ;D The lack of a large breastbone suggest it wasn't a strong flyer. It may have just fluttered around like a chicken. How come this fossil doesn't show any feathers? |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Sept 17, 2009 21:12:55 GMT
A couple of the Archaeopteryx fossils lacked feathers. Its nice to see a different one done as a cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 17, 2009 23:36:04 GMT
A couple of the Archaeopteryx fossils lacked feathers. Its nice to see a different one done as a cast. Probably dozens of other unfeathered ones were found too-- But they were probably all thought of as "ugh, another compy..."  |
|
|
|
Post by triceratops on Sept 18, 2009 1:13:11 GMT
Wow, these are nice. Any websites that sell them internationally? I like also that they refer to Archaeopteryx as a 'flying dinosaur' ;D...which is correct of course! ;D The lack of a large breastbone suggest it wasn't a strong flyer. It may have just fluttered around like a chicken. How come this fossil doesn't show any feathers? This model has been many years ago,at that time pe.ople had not yet found |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 18, 2009 2:51:48 GMT
A couple of the Archaeopteryx fossils lacked feathers. Its nice to see a different one done as a cast. Probably dozens of other unfeathered ones were found too-- But they were probably all thought of as "ugh, another compy..."  At last count there have been 11 Archaeopteryx fossils found, many of which show feathers. In 1983 several leading British scientist including Sir Fred Hoyle carefully studied the two best Archaeopteryx specimens, front and back, and declared them to be fakes. They discovered that the front and back slabs of each specimen didn't match. They found that an alteration had been made to the left wing as depicted in an 1863 drawing. They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand. They also found that etching process had used cement blobs. When the scientist requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientist. The same British Museum had been responsible for the Piltdown Man fraud. The Nobel Prize comittee punished Sir Fred Hoyle for exposing this fraud by passing him over and giving its award to his underling for work that Hoyle was the undisputed leader on.  |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 18, 2009 3:37:16 GMT
I meant if any limestone miner guys found any without feathers, they might have just thought that they were simply compsognathus and maybe discarded them  |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Sept 18, 2009 3:45:31 GMT
Stoneage - Wow. Spoutin' the creationist bupkis. Someone has to, I guess... And I will quote to that - "Their suggestions have not been taken seriously by paleontologists, as their evidence was largely based on misunderstandings of geology, and they never discussed the other feather-bearing specimens, which have increased in number since then." and link to this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx*Sigh* Cordy - Compsognathus is more rare then Archaeopteryx, and is only known from 2 nearly complete skeletons. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 18, 2009 17:37:27 GMT
;D The lack of a large breastbone suggest it wasn't a strong flyer. It may have just fluttered around like a chicken. Well, yeah, but you know...close enough! |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 18, 2009 22:00:53 GMT
Stoneage - Wow. Spoutin' the creationist bupkis. Someone has to, I guess... And I will quote to that - "Their suggestions have not been taken seriously by paleontologists, as their evidence was largely based on misunderstandings of geology, and they never discussed the other feather-bearing specimens, which have increased in number since then."e *Sigh There you go again with another one of your strawmen arguments. Calling me a creationist just because I mentioned something I had read. Sir Fred Hoyle was a noted astronomer who won many awards. Yes he was controversial. But he was an Atheist turned Agnostic Deist. He did not believe in Christianity or Jesus or anything like it. I think he would be offended by your claiming otherwise. I don't mine if you don't agree with him but I would appreciate it if you don't call me names like Creationist, which of course is untrue. |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 18, 2009 22:13:14 GMT
Cordy - Compsognathus is more rare then Archaeopteryx, and is only known from 2 nearly complete skeletons. Even so-- Archeo seemed to be much more valuable/wanted at the time when many of them were discovered |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Sept 19, 2009 0:24:34 GMT
Stoneage - Wrong on both counts...
A. OY VEY! I did not make a strawman argument - please, PLEASE, people, read up on what a strawman argument is - people seem to have the darnedest time with that on this board for some reason...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
B - I never called you a creationist. I called the rhetoric you posted on the board there creationist bupkis. (which it is usually used as/or along with, especially in the context that you posted it, as if it was a "fact") - I have had more of that line of "thinkers" throw that bit of trivia up as "fact" plenty of times before...as a matter of fact, (I could be incorrect here, but I think I recall going over it in the past on this board) I believe the whole Archaeopteryx/Hoyle garbage was talked out in length back in one of the feather threads, along with the magical mystical misinterpretations of maniraptora by our main man Feduccia)
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 19, 2009 3:47:19 GMT
Stoneage - Wrong on both counts... A. OY VEY! I did not make a strawman argument - please, PLEASE, people, read up on what a strawman argument is - people seem to have the darnedest time with that on this board for some reason...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man B - I never called you a creationist. I called the rhetoric you posted on the board there creationist bupkis. (which it is usually used as/or along with, especially in the context that you posted it, as if it was a "fact") - I have had more of that line of "thinkers" throw that bit of trivia up as "fact" plenty of times before...as a matter of fact, (I could be incorrect here, but I think I recall going over it in the past on this board) I believe the whole Archaeopteryx/Hoyle garbage was talked out in length back in one of the feather threads, along with the magical mystical misinterpretations of maniraptora by our main man Feduccia) By implying that I am spoutin creationist bupkis you are implying that I am a creationist and are there for misrepresenting my postion. Sir Fred Hoyle and several leading British Scientist did come to these conclusions and Piltdown Man is consided a fraud, that is a fact. His conclusions may be incorrect. Still many do believe he should have won a Noble Prize for other work he had done. Likewise if I was to say your position was Darwinist dogma or Evolutionist, it would also be considered derogatory. Also on an other subject. Why would someone say anothers artwork is sloppy and not detailed enough, and then show many examples of their supposively superior artwork, and then claim they couldn't wait to see their Carnotosaurus? Why would you wish to see sloppy under detailed work? |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 19, 2009 4:01:42 GMT
Needless to say, this fight must stop immeadiatly, triceratops only wanted to show his collection. Perhaps a thread in the dinosaurs section? But no insults please.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Sept 19, 2009 4:08:18 GMT
Fight will stop - But - I felt I needed to make this clear - I was not implying you are a creationist.
"Why would someone say anothers artwork is sloppy and not detailed enough, and then show many examples of their supposively superior artwork, and then claim they couldn't wait to see their Carnotosaurus? Why would you wish to see sloppy under detailed work?"
Never once did I try to say, or mean to imply, as that seems to be a big deal here, that my art is in anyway superior to griffon's, or for that matter, anyone else's who has posted work on this board or anywhere else. If anything, I made it clear that I am professionally untrained as an artist, and have no idea what art from the perspective of a person holding an art degree would know what to look for. I was trying to explain to griffon what I, in my personal opinion like about his work, and what I did not. I had tried to give an honest critique - then I tried to explain the exact nature of what I was trying to say, and apparently I did so, or at least I felt I did so unsuccessfully, and It did not seem to be getting across, (if anything it seemed to be raising hackles) so I thought it would be easier to instead post a few images of my work as an example of what I personally like, and what I meant by what I said. I was hoping this would clarify the situation. If you recall, I said I liked his watercolor style a whole bunch, more then once. NEVER did I say his watercolor work was "sloppy". You are clearly misinterpreting my position, and what was meant when I posted and when I replied to him. I think re reading the dialogue between us would make that clear, or at least I hope it would.
Stoneage, or for that matter, anyone else who has anything to say to me on the topic, PM if you wish to continue this.
|
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
At last count there have been 11 Archaeopteryx fossils found, many of which show feathers.
