Wow shes named after a giant prehistoric shark, gotta love those parents

another thing, with these cgi reenactments they always make prehistoric creatures really sturdy, like super metal robots. dyou don't see any animals like that even if they're muscley, it's a stretch.

>> ^charliem:
How.....how do they know it shit on the carcass as a defence mechanism ?


I think often these shows tend to stretch beyond normal supposition to make things more interesting. There maybe be some physical evidence, and its probably in-part based on behaviors of current living animals.

Indeed, don't get too darn excited, you obviously didn't pay that much attention in your classes. For starters, Trilobites, the uber cool real ones were sea dwellers. And secondly, this is just a name someone has applied to the thing, it is not a trilobite at all.

So don't get too excited, it is just one seriously funky looking animal that looks like it's come straight out of the dinosaur age.

This is a larval stage of a beetle of this sort, and trilobites did not fly.

Doesn't detract from the coolness of this thing, but it's not a living prehistoric bug.

I am from Denver and I absolutely love this museum. When I was growing up it was one of my favorite places to go, and now whenever I'm back in town I make it a point to visit and stroll through "Prehistoric Journey" (what's featured with the dinosaurs) and the wildlife halls. Anyway, I thought this quote from Consilience written by Edward O. Wilson is appropriate:

"Perhaps God did create all organisms, including human beings, in finished form, in one stroke, and maybe it all happened several thousand years ago. But if that is true, He also salted the earth with false evidence in such endless and exquisite detail, and so thoroughly from pole to pole, as to make us conclude first that life evolved, and second that the process took billions of years. Surely Scripture tells us He would not do that. The Prime Mover of the Old and New Testaments is variously loving, magisterial, denying, thunderously angry, and mysterious, but never tricky."

Prehistoric men were Monchichis? Who knew!

I can hardly even watch that, it's so disturbing to me. I don't think spiders should exist in nature. They just don't look like something that should BE. Now, I'm not a sophisticated man, but i knows what I likes, and i DON'T LIKES SPIDERS.
and lobsters...? they just look like prehistoric sea spiders from hell. I had one slapped down on a plate in front of me once, and I almost freaked the fuck out.

Prehistoric tribal ancestor worship of the Neanderthal was wrong.. and it sank into the swamp. The Sumerians got it wrong, and their religion also sank into the swamp. The ancient Greek and Romans had it wrong for many centuries. Their religion fell over... then sank into the swamp. The Pharaoh (living God) worship of one of the longest reigning and largest ancient civilizations of the world, the Egyptians, was also dead on wrong. Their religion sank into the sand.

Now.. the FINAL AND ONLY CORRECT RELIGION STOOD! Christianity of course in all its divinely inspired holy magical sparkly magic-man infused goodness FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT!

Thats right folks. They finally got it right after many thousands and thousands of years (counting only actual recorded history since the ascent of literacy and writing mind you).

So. Isn't that proof enough?

Yeah. Really. Ok. Sure.

To be specific. I don't think the Mormon religion has legitimacy to anyone other than mormons :-) or anyone who is knowledgeable about what their faith asserts. I also think Christians, Native Americans, Women and African Americans should be especially critical of the mormon "faith" for the following reasons.

for CHRISTIANS
Mormonism has in recent decades invested a great deal of effort in generating an appearance of Christianity, and insist that they are Christian. But there has been no substantive change in their core doctrines which are antithetical to biblical Christianity. This trend of creating a Christian appearance is very troublesome for two major reasons--first, it discourages Christians from reaching out to Mormons with the truth of Jesus Christ, since it would not appear to be even necessary.

Secondly, it makes Christians vulnerable to conversion tactics of Mormonism, making it appear to be a simple change of denominations, not a conversion to a new faith system.

from here http://www.lhvm.org/ministry.htm
or for much more detailed info go here http://epologetics.org/mormonism.php
http://epologetics.org/questionsformormons.php

NATIVE AMERICANS
The Book of Mormon states, in an introductory paragraph added in 1981, that Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians".

Lamanites are described as having a "skin of blackness" caused by God's curse on the descendants of Laman for their wickedness and corruption.

the term "Lamanite" comes to signify wickedness (rather than blood heritage), whereas "Nephite" comes to signify a follower of Christ, both terms alluding to the previous nations' predominant moral tendencies.

The 1981 statement position was controversial. Based on genetic and archeological data, mainstream scientists have concluded that Native Americans are descended from the prehistoric inhabitants of East Asia.

(IMAGINE THE LOOK OF YOUR CULTURE BEING ATTRIBUTED TO A CURSE BY GOD)

also, the wikipedia entries on mormonism have been heavey altered in favor of their religion. I've tried to reference a site that gives you both the original mormon text and a comparison to the current mormon text.

more to come

chilaxe: Impossible, as Bill O. and his like can't accept personal responsibility for their actions. Rather, they feel constantly threatened and attacked and respond forth with. Funny...that behavior is considered more "prehistoric", eh Bill?

Want the biggest laugh of all? This is from my google video account No I didn't ask jimnms to post it either Thanks jimnms! That is the only comedy in this video. I had hoped this would eventually make the sift!

Someone submit The Rise of Dominionism, Life and Liberty for All Who Believe. Two others I would love to see sifted are A Fox 17 News story on the discovery of prehistoric cave art in Dunbar Cave, and Fiber Optics, Lighting our future. All would make excellent sifts imo, but I was unable to sift them.

Thanks to all . . .

My sifts have received more benefit from the kindness of strangers (and brothers in the case of James) than probably anyone else's Sifts here.

But The Sift is an unfinished country. It is still prehistorical. The only thing lacking is - is the dinosaurs here. It is like a curse weighing over the entire webscape. And whoever. . .goes too deep into this has her share of the curse. So we are cursed with what we are doing here. It is a website that Richard Dawkins, if He exists, has created in anger. Taking a close look at what is all around us . . .there is a harmony. It is the harmony of an overwhelming and collective murder.

We have to get acquainted with this idea that there is no real harmony in the Sifterverse as we have conceived it. But when I say this, I say this all full of admiration for the Sift. It is not that I hate it, I love it. I love it very much. But I love it against my better judgment.

(apologies to Werner Herzog)

The Lost World takes away this distinction, being shown in an Imperial Airways flight from London to Paris in April of 1925. It was also shown again when the German Air Service Company premiered it on Feb. 4th, 1926 during a flight over Berlin.

It has been noted that this presentation created a strange sensation: seeing prehistoric monsters running amok in the cabin of a 20th century aircraft. While the set-up was a simple projector and screen, a flying Nickelodeon, it was no doubt better than most in-flight movies we've had to endure since.

Check out the early stop motion. It's been said to be the first used on a feature film.

This is the final scene of the movie.


The information here is from:

http://silentmoviemonsters.tripod.com/TheLostWorld/LW1925.html

I think you are both totally wrong on this. Maybe correct in principal, but not with current meaning of atheist. If you look at prehistoric humans, indigineous cultures, etc. I think you can clearly state that the natural state for humans in animism, or maybe spiritualist.

I think we are all born with wonder and concepts of spirituality, but certainly not the concepts held by organized religion. Most people feel there is some greater powers at work, or have a greater sense of wonderment in nature. The trouble with most people reaction to 'atheist' is a lack of religion, or a belief in science in place of religion, instead of hardcore view of total lack of any deity. In some ways science can be a religion or viewed as an explanation for much of what religion seeks to explain.