Critter probably looked like this Nurse Shark – but BIGGER
The fossilised remains of a gigantic 10m-long predatory shark have been unearthed in Kansas.
Scientists dug up a gigantic jawbone, teeth and scales belonging to the shark which lived 89 million years ago.
The bottom-dwelling predator had huge tooth plates, which it likely used to crush large shelled animals such as giant clams.
Palaeontologists already knew about the shark, but the new specimen suggests it was far bigger than previously thought…
Dr Kenshu Shimada of DePaul university in Chicago, Illinois, US found the fossilized remains of the shark in rocks known as the Fort Hays Limestone in Kansas.
“Kansas back then was smack in the middle of an inland sea known as the Western Interior Seaway that extended in a north-south direction across North America,” says Dr Shimada…
“Although it represents a fraction of the entire body of the shark, the jaw fragment is gigantic. The estimated jaw length was almost 1m long, and that would suggest that the shark was likely at least 10m in length,” says Dr Shimada.
No doubt, our flat-Earth and creationist cousins in Kansas presume this is just leftover from the last catfish fry.
Eideard 
God put it there… just for the fun of it.
There you go again, accusing God for Satan’s pranks.
Damn Satan!
Seriously… Good find! 🙂
Where and what is this god you all mock and are sarcastic to. Or is this just an academic fear and bravado for the sake of the blog. However, when alone those doubts and bravado turn in to fears and doubts just in case.Or does your science prove beyond doubt there is absolutely nothing but science. very fearless and brave, then of course you introduce the presence of a devil..
You know, Mr. Ditto, sometimes we reveal too much of ourselves in our Replies.
“…alone those doubts and bravado turn in to fears and doubts just in case.”
Interesting. Very interesting…
Exactly when did you start having these “fears and doubts just in case”, Mr. Ditto? As a young child?
They sure seems like they’d be your excuses for irrational superstition, not ours.
well Doctor it’s like this, Im surronded by people who know everything, and I am wondering if they are right. Only one, said the doctor, someone who describes themself as, Sinnered or something similar. Quite an angry and immature person looking for attention, and friends. Blimey Doc, I know just the person.
Science should be working on a pill to help those with the “dude in the sky” delusions. The pharma that develops one would get rich real quick.
I’m sorry your life turned out so badly, Mr. Ditto but I don’t feel like being dragged down to your level of misery today.
Thanks for the invitation, though!
😆
Some people need a comfort blanket… I don’t.
OK, but if you change your mind, Jesus is ready when you are [just like Delta]:
http://tinyurl.com/yljx9o3
Dude… I’m convinced… JESUS IS ALIVE! PRAISE JESUS! 😀
Looks like a nice dog chew toy.
…does your science prove beyond doubt there is absolutely nothing but science.
That only demonstrates you don’t know what science is. Allow me to explain.
Science is the search for knowledge. It is a “thing” only in the sense of being a noun. Science “proves” very little. Instead it provides evidence. The evidence can, and does, aggregate, and may be supplanted or altered in light of new evidence. Evidence discovered may, and does, cover other disciplines. For example, DNA may be used in medicine, evolution, and biology.
When the evidence becomes overwhelming it becomes “established science”. Even established science is open to change as new evidence becomes available or terms and classifications change as our knowledge base increases. Science is never static. Don’t, however, confuse new evidence with the prior science being bad and as such, all science is bad. Very rarely does a new discovery totally refute older science even when it is revolutionary.
So why does science rarely prove something? Simply because there may be some new evidence arise tomorrow.
Absolute rubbish, your presentation is sparse and inconclusive. You have no estblished proof only what you have read and have been told. Sorry Teach, you are not making sense, do not give up your day job.
The mark of a failure is when you cry the other person is wrong but can’t point to any errors. What I know is what I’ve LEARNED, which includes being told and having read. (I did go to school, thank you :))
BTW, of course this is “sparse”. Did you want a dissertation or just prefer your ignorance? If you wanted more information then the world is your oyster. You know how to use the internet, seek the answer and you will find it.
Remember, “proof” and “conclusive” are layman’s terms, not scientific terms. (I’m not including Applied Science in this category, such as Math, Chemistry, and Physics, which do use laws and proofs.) For example, you may ask a doctor what caused your cancer, and it is doubtful he can “prove conclusively” the agent and time frame.
Sorry Martin, that wasn’t even a good try.
Har, as you collaboraters all agree, follow the leader even if he has no idea where he is going or been. Show us your qualifications as a scientist or academic with no supportive evidence apart from agreeing. Indoctrination is not supportive evidence, just passed on jargon. It appears that, Mr Con Fusion, jag, and sinnered, all attended the same institutuion of propaganda regardind perfection
Martin
My qualifications? Why? Its a damn blog where we share intelligent ideas and thoughts. Can you rebut anything I said without being merely dismissive?
The explanation is apt for open-minded readers who pass by.
Omitting, of course, your target. Har!
As above look upwards and all around.
While you are all together in your smug little circle, which seems to lack the natural ebb and flow of natural conversation. You are all in a self induced time warp of self belief, scientifically designed. The natural world is the only science of truth, not the man made one, the latter is where you all dwell. Debate is all about listening to both sides of a story, not knowing all the answers as you all appear to know. It has been interesting to talk to you all and now it is Adieu, Ta Ta and goodbye, many will say good riddance, but yet again are you right. Thanks Eideard, for your topics of converstion.
Martin,
Will you be returning under a different handle?
We’re sorry Canada beat GB so decisively in Curling at the Olympics. especially when Curling originated in Scotland. And we’re the US would have beat GB in hockey, if GB had a hockey team. And we’re sorry Canada beat GB so badly in Snowboard Pursuit, even though GB doesn’t have a Snowboard Pursuit team. And we’re sorry the US beat GB in Bobsledding because the GB Bobsled team really sucked. And we’re sorry …