PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Snake was as long as a bus!


rockdawg21
02-04-2009, 06:10 PM
This is nuts, they even have a photo of the snake's vertebra in comparison to a 17-foot anaconda and it dwarf's the anaconda's!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29014818

Ancient snake was as long as a bus
Reptile slithered about South America's rainforests 60 million years ago

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090204-giant-snake-02.hlarge.jpg
Jason Bourque
The extinct giant snake (shown in an artist's reconstruction) would have sent even Hollywood's anacondas slithering away.

By Jeanna Bryner
updated 1 hour, 1 minute ago

A colossal snake about the length of a school bus slithered about South America's rainforests some 60 million years ago, according to an analysis of the skeletal remains of what is now considered the largest snake ever identified.

"It's the biggest snake the world has ever known," said Jason Head, a paleontologist at the University of Toronto Mississauga and part of an international team who discovered and identified the snake bones.

He added, "The snake's body was so wide that if it were moving down the hall and decided to come into my office to eat me, it would literally have to squeeze through the door."

Fossils of the extinct snake species, now called Titanoboa cerrejonensis, were discovered in the Cerrejon Coal Mine in northern Colombia.

From the fossilized vertebrae, the researchers conservatively estimate the snake weighed about 2,500 pounds and measured nearly 43 feet nose to tail tip.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090204-snakebones-hmed-8a.standard.jpg
Ray Carson / Ray Carson/UF News Bureau
Top: series of vertebrae and ribs of 45 foot Titanoboa. Middle: series of vertebrae with one rib extending below. Bottom: two vertebrae (white), and a partial skull & mandible of modern 17 foot Anaconda, for scale.

The giant reptile was a boine snake, a type of non-venomous constrictor that includes anacondas and boas. In the same fossil rainforest, the researchers also found giant sea turtles and crocodile relatives.

In fact, while alive, the snake likely gorged on its crocodilian neighbors.

"We think it was a completely aquatic snake, that it didn't really go out on land except to bask every once in a while," Head told LiveScience.

"And aquatic snakes generally eat aquatic vertebrates, and the only other aquatic vertebrates around are these primitive crocodiles and these giant turtles. And you can imagine it's probably pretty difficult to eat a turtle when you can't chew."

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090204-bonecompare.small.jpg
Ray Carson / Ray Carson/UF News Bureau
Left: a vertebra (one bone of the spine) of a 17 foot modern Anaconda; Right: a vertebra of 45 foot Titanoboa.

The snake's enormous dimensions are a sign that temperatures along the equator where the remains were found were once much balmier.

"The bigger you get, the more energy you need overall," Head said. "And since they get their energy from external environments, the bigger they are, the more energy they're going to require from the external environment."

(Snakes are cold-blooded animals, so they don't generate their own body heat.)

The researchers calculated that in order to support the slithering giant, its tropical habitat would have needed a temperature of about 86 to 93 degrees Fahrenheit (30 to 34 degrees Celsius).

"Tropical ecosystems of South America were surprisingly different 60 million years ago," said Jonathan Bloch, a vertebrate paleontologist at the University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History, who worked with Head on the snake study.

"It was a rainforest, like today, but it was even hotter and the cold-blooded reptiles were all substantially larger. The result was, among other things, the largest snakes the world has ever seen ... and hopefully ever will."

The discovery is detailed in the Feb. 5 issue of the journal Nature.

Tyburn
02-04-2009, 06:44 PM
The climate has alot to do with it.

At that point in time the world was going through a natural Global Warming Phase, and indeed was far hotter then today, the sea level far higher, almost no polar ice caps at all.

All Earth was capable of supporting VERY large things, including dragonflies the size of Birds, and stuff like that. :) We're speeding up the natural process of bringing that kinda environment back right now

Black Mamba
02-05-2009, 04:40 PM
I was just doing some reading up on this and holy smokes that snake was HUGE. :blink: I was saw on the Discovery channel that a 17-20 foot constrictor was put almost a 100 lbs psi on their prey. Can you imagine a snake that's 43 feet and weights 1.5 tons?

CAVEMAN
02-05-2009, 04:43 PM
Can someone please tell me how they know it is 60 million years old??:rolleyes:

NateR
02-05-2009, 04:51 PM
Can someone please tell me how they know it is 60 million years old??:rolleyes:

They can't, it's impossible to date anything that old, so they use the old standby... they guess.

Carbon dating, when compared against tree rings, is only reliable to 1000 years. All other dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions about the universe and only amount to educated guesses as well, based on Evolutionary theory.

Tyburn
02-05-2009, 04:52 PM
I was just doing some reading up on this and holy smokes that snake was HUGE. :blink: I was saw on the Discovery channel that a 17-20 foot constrictor was put almost a 100 lbs psi on their prey. Can you imagine a snake that's 43 feet and weights 1.5 tons?
Dont forget though, its prey would have been much larger due to the climate aswell. :)

Tyburn
02-05-2009, 04:56 PM
Can someone please tell me how they know it is 60 million years old??:rolleyes:
The true figure doesnt actually matter. Lets just say its Pre the last Ice Age.
These snakes would have been around for as long as the Earth was in its Heat Cycle.

It evidently not modern, Snakes couldnt grow that large today becase its not warm enough and there isnt enough food probably for it to support itself. But in the past when the Heat Cycle was at a peak, dont forget the prey would have been much larger aswell.

NateR
02-05-2009, 04:59 PM
The true figure doesnt actually matter. Lets just say its Pre the last Ice Age.
These snakes would have been around for as long as the Earth was in its Heat Cycle.

It evidently not modern, Snakes couldnt grow that large today becase its not warm enough and there isnt enough food probably for it to support itself. But in the past when the Heat Cycle was at a peak, dont forget the prey would have been much larger aswell.

What if we don't believe there was ever an Ice Age? Didn't Al Gore just make that up to sell DVDs? :laugh:

I would say that this snake is most likely pre-Flood.

jason2130
02-05-2009, 04:59 PM
as a pest control tech i can say im glad these are no longer around :laugh:

rockdawg21
02-05-2009, 05:00 PM
as a pest control tech i can say im glad these are no longer around :laugh:
As the highest member of the food chain, I can say I'm glad these are no longer around, lol

Tyburn
02-05-2009, 05:04 PM
What if we don't believe there was ever an Ice Age? Didn't Al Gore just make that up to sell DVDs? :laugh:

I would say that this snake is most likely pre-Flood.
The ice age was pre flood.

I dont know if the Ice Age happened in reality or whether its just backdated time, but you know what I mean. I have to say though, that it would have been dead LONG before the Biblical flood...if you dont believe in the iceage, you must say that everything like that is backdated, this means its a reflection of what could have happened naturally to lead TO the creation event.

Probably never took place in reality...if that makes sense.

jason2130
02-05-2009, 05:04 PM
As the highest member of the food chain, I can say I'm glad these are no longer around, lol

i can tell ya this much, im trading in the choke stick for a 50.cal, and they can fire me if they want me to grab that on the back of its neck

no more catch and release policy, and after i exterminate it the customer is responsible for disposal lol

Llamafighter
02-05-2009, 05:04 PM
Thsi was in the metro paper this morning! If it still existed you know Crow would probably have one as a pet;)
Feeding it a horse a day!

Black Mamba
02-05-2009, 05:09 PM
They can't, it's impossible to date anything that old, so they use the old standby... they guess.

Carbon dating, when compared against tree rings, is only reliable to 1000 years. All other dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions about the universe and only amount to educated guesses as well, based on Evolutionary theory.

I learned that about Carbon dating in bio too, anything beyond the millions isn't reliable. If you're in the thousands to an extent is can be reliable. And speaking of Carbon dating, I've heard people try to use it to disprove the Bible. :huh: Have you heard about that Nate or anyone else?

CAVEMAN
02-05-2009, 05:11 PM
They can't, it's impossible to date anything that old, so they use the old standby... they guess.

Carbon dating, when compared against tree rings, is only reliable to 1000 years. All other dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions about the universe and only amount to educated guesses as well, based on Evolutionary theory.


Yes! I was thinking pre-flood, not 60 million years. I was waiting for someone to bring up the Periodic Times Chart. Cause that thing is an absolute joke! :laugh:

CAVEMAN
02-05-2009, 05:16 PM
I learned that about Carbon dating in bio too, anything beyond the millions isn't reliable. If you're in the thousands to an extent is can be reliable. And speaking of Carbon dating, I've heard people try to use it to disprove the Bible. :huh: Have you heard about that Nate or anyone else?

The whole periodic times chart is a joke as well. But yes, there have been many geologists and scientists that have tried to use carbon dating to disprove the Bible. And just like Nate said, carbon dating is only reliable up to a 1000 years. I have heard some say 2000 years, evwn then, according to the Bible, the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

Tyburn
02-05-2009, 05:17 PM
Yes! I was thinking pre-flood, not 60 million years. I was waiting for someone to bring up the Periodic Times Chart. Cause that thing is an absolute joke! :laugh:
Well I didnt bring it up because I think they got the figure wrong.

See 60Million years ago was AFTER the start of the Ice Age....the word was frozen that long ago. The Cretatious Period ended 65Million years...and I think the Warmth Spiked in the Jurassic...soooo maybe 160Million years would be more acurate...no way anything that size was alive after the Gulf of Mexico was formed.

There is nothing funny about the Historical past...you just have to remember that anything Pre the Antedeluvian Culture of about 10,000 years ago might not have happened...that is to say it would and could have happened and should have happened without Creation being a Chronological Event. As Creation is an Eternal Event the repuccusions go BACKWARDS into time aswell as FORWARDS...thats why those who died before Christ can still be saved by his sacrifice.

CAVEMAN
02-05-2009, 05:23 PM
I learned that about Carbon dating in bio too, anything beyond the millions isn't reliable. If you're in the thousands to an extent is can be reliable. And speaking of Carbon dating, I've heard people try to use it to disprove the Bible. :huh: Have you heard about that Nate or anyone else?

You can also check this site out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Tyburn
02-05-2009, 05:24 PM
The whole periodic times chart is a joke as well. But yes, there have been many geologists and scientists that have tried to use carbon dating to disprove the Bible. And just like Nate said, carbon dating is only reliable up to a 1000 years. I have heard some say 2000 years, evwn then, according to the Bible, the earth is only about 6,000 years old.
:rolleyes: No...according to an Anglican Bishop, based on an incomplete linage that is possibly more symbolic then literal.

However, one thing IS certain. The Creational Event in Chronology CAN be worked out. Simply, as soon as Humans start working in groups. The earliest known culture, still denied by many, but prooven to have existed is 10,000 BC

AND..lets get something else straight, you arent measuring the age of the Earth, but the date of a Chronological Creational Event. From which there will be a backdated past....Just like if you drop a bomb on a piece of land, the shockwave fans out IN ALL directions, EAST aswell as WEST.

Trust me, I've done Philosophy of Time, Philosophy of Religion AND Evolution at university...The truth is FAR more complex then either Scientists or the Christians on this forum accept....and for the record, I dont know if anything Pre 10,000 BC happened in the reality we understand it to have...rather I see it as a progression backwards, just like we are in a progression forwards, the epicentre of which was the Creational Event. :)

NateR
02-05-2009, 05:28 PM
The ice age was pre flood.

I dont know if the Ice Age happened in reality or whether its just backdated time, but you know what I mean. I have to say though, that it would have been dead LONG before the Biblical flood...if you dont believe in the iceage, you must say that everything like that is backdated, this means its a reflection of what could have happened naturally to lead TO the creation event.

Probably never took place in reality...if that makes sense.

Well, I believe the "Ice Age" is just a misreading of the evidence. If there really was a global flood, then you would expect the water near the poles of the Earth to freeze, which is what I believe science mistakes for the Ice Age.

As mentioned before, dating methods aren't reliable and studying the strata of the Earth doesn't provide consistent results. Besides a global flood that lasted a year, could have laid hundreds or thousands of layers of sediment on the earth before the waters receded. Most likely, those layers are mistaken for periods of time, that science believes span millions of years, when they probably all happened over the course of a year.

The Bible tells us to put our faith in the "foolishness of GOD" before the wisdom of men, so when GOD says that He created the universe in 6 days, I see no problem with believing that.

Tyburn
02-05-2009, 06:02 PM
Well, I believe the "Ice Age" is just a misreading of the evidence. If there really was a global flood, then you would expect the water near the poles of the Earth to freeze, which is what I believe science mistakes for the Ice Age.

As mentioned before, dating methods aren't reliable and studying the strata of the Earth doesn't provide consistent results. Besides a global flood that lasted a year, could have laid hundreds or thousands of layers of sediment on the earth before the waters receded. Most likely, those layers are mistaken for periods of time, that science believes span millions of years, when they probably all happened over the course of a year.

The Bible tells us to put our faith in the "foolishness of GOD" before the wisdom of men, so when GOD says that He created the universe in 6 days, I see no problem with believing that.

Do you purposefully not actually read my posts Nathan?

Did I ever say I thought the Ice Age happened in Reality? Did I ever tell you there was no such thing as the deluge

This is what I mean by Christians on this forum being far to simple in their understanding...nothing is "mistake for periods of time" The rocks and strata mean exactly what Science says...but that DOESNT mean the events occured in real time. You all avoid my detailed explaination...because you'd rather Mock Science, then see the Truth...Science reveals the Glory of GOD in creation...its not a fools toy...employed properly it is a powerful tool through which GOD may reveal himself.

Some of you just dont want to try and understand a much more complex scenario which perfectly answers ALL sides without comprimising evidence, truth, GOD, science...any of it.

If there are no takers...I'll just leave you to it...the foolish Scientists can shout about fossil records, and the foolish Christians can paraphrase one of GOD greatest Achievements...and I'll just leave you to bash each other...and talk to those who might want to know the truth rather then propergander either way, scientific, or creationalist. :mellow:

County Mike
02-05-2009, 06:04 PM
My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns hun.

Llamafighter
02-05-2009, 06:08 PM
My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns hun.

:whip:


:happy0198: :happy0198:

Tyburn
02-05-2009, 06:09 PM
My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns hun.
:ashamed:

VCURamFan
02-05-2009, 06:25 PM
My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns hun. http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/RaeSpot/4243.jpg

CAVEMAN
02-05-2009, 06:33 PM
:rolleyes: [B]

AND..lets get something else straight, you arent measuring the age of the Earth, but the date of a Chronological Creational Event. :)


Oh, but we are measuring the age of the earth when someone claims a snake lived 60 million years ago here on earth. I don't understand your point.

atomdanger
02-07-2009, 04:29 AM
Hmmm, 43 feet?

that isn't so impressive.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3845750/

Retics hit 30 feet on a regular basis, I've got friends with retics at 25 and 27 in captivity.

Chuck
02-07-2009, 04:35 AM
Hmmm, 43 feet?

that isn't so impressive.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3845750/

Retics hit 30 feet on a regular basis, I've got friends with retics at 25 and 27 in captivity.

False.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/bigsnake.asp

Hughes_GOAT
02-07-2009, 05:03 AM
the Devil put the bones in the ground to test our faith :stirthepot:

atomdanger
02-07-2009, 07:17 AM
False.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/bigsnake.asp

Nice.

Still doesn't change my opinion that 40 feet isn't that impressive.

Seeing how Modern day snakes make 30 feet. a 10 foot difference? ehhh.

Not much of a difference when you compare moderm day lizards to dinosaurs,
etc....

Tyburn
02-07-2009, 11:19 AM
Oh, but we are measuring the age of the earth when someone claims a snake lived 60 million years ago here on earth. I don't understand your point.
No...we are not. We are infact saying that these creatures lived BEFORE the creative event. Therefore they existed ONLY in backdated time.

Let me explain, pretend you are writing a story, choose a character. picture the character in your mind. That is the moment of Creation...NOW what is his past? you instantly start to construct a past that happened AFTER you created him. ALL Characters have retrospective pasts in cinema and writing...noone thinks of a Character being born and living first...by the time they think that they already knows what he looks like at the age they want to start writing about him.

There are two possibilities when applying this to creation 1) all backdated History never actually physically happened, but things like fossils were created at the moment of the Creational Event and endowed with all the properties of something older. 2) Its actually happened, infact its happening now. Time is moving in both directions, forwards into the future AND backwards into the past FROM a chronological event.

Do you understand what I am saying? This is Degree level Philosophy of time (to do with time moving forwards and backwards, and infact two times moving forwards and backwards at the same time that of the physical realm, and the spiritual realm) and degree level Philosophy of Religion (Important Chronological events whose properties transcend time and therefore are not limited to only the chronological future following the event, but ALSO the past IN chronology BEFORE the chronological event because of its spiritual nature.) The SAME principle applies to HOW GOD can credit people with righteousness before the death of Christ. The Spiritual ramifications of His death TRANSCEND time, therefore are applicable throughout the ENTIRE Chronology, regardless of the events chronological position. I floored both Christian Creationalists AND Scientific Athiests in the room when we had this discussion...its what made my friendship with Herr Friedel Weinert, the Tutor who was extremely impressed by the theorum, he was just mortified when I couldnt come up with anything on the level of Philosophy of Science...because that was before I discovered the idea of GOD speaking things into existance with the idea that particals vibrate and everything gives of waves electromagnetic, radiation, whatever that can be converted into an audible noise...wish I'd know THAT seven years ago LOL

Chuck
02-07-2009, 02:21 PM
Nice.

Still doesn't change my opinion that 40 feet isn't that impressive.

Seeing how Modern day snakes make 30 feet. a 10 foot difference? ehhh.

Not much of a difference when you compare moderm day lizards to dinosaurs,
etc....

I totally agreee. Being a snake owner/lover 43 feet would be fun to see but really not OMG impressive.

rockdawg21
02-07-2009, 02:54 PM
Hmmm, 43 feet?

that isn't so impressive.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3845750/

Retics hit 30 feet on a regular basis, I've got friends with retics at 25 and 27 in captivity.
So if the world's current longest snakes are 30 feet (I believe the record is a reticulated python at 33 feet), that's an increase of about 40%, so the average height of a man is 69 inches (5'9") and if the average height increase were 40%, than would make the average height of a man to be 96.6 inches or, 8'1". That's a VERY significant difference in size and mass.

Plus, did you notice they estimated the weight of the snake to be 2,500 pounds? That's 1 ton more than the largest anacondas. That's a BIG difference!

Black Mamba
02-07-2009, 06:08 PM
You took most of the words out of my mouth rockdawg. :laugh:

I was going to say the length may not be super duper impressive (43 feet), but that weight (1.5 tons) is massive. The sheer crushing force psi would be amazing. And did you see the comparison of an 17 foot anaconda bone vs. this animal's bone? That is crazy.

I would be curious to find out if this snake could have eaten an average adult human, or would our shoulders still get in the way? I know present day snakes, if eating an adult, get stuck right around the shoulder area. Although some scientist suggest if an adult were layed on their side, a snake might be able to consume them (don't know how much truth there it behind that statment).

atomdanger
02-07-2009, 06:28 PM
So if the world's current longest snakes are 30 feet (I believe the record is a reticulated python at 33 feet), that's an increase of about 40%, so the average height of a man is 69 inches (5'9") and if the average height increase were 40%, than would make the average height of a man to be 96.6 inches or, 8'1". That's a VERY significant difference in size and mass.

Plus, did you notice they estimated the weight of the snake to be 2,500 pounds? That's 1 ton more than the largest anacondas. That's a BIG difference!


Right, its a significant difference, but not an OMG difference.
I mean, modern day man has produced 8 foot men, so...

I guess when I think ancient stuff I just expect big numbers,
so I was hoping for a 200 foot long snake or something lol

atomdanger
02-07-2009, 06:29 PM
I totally agreee. Being a snake owner/lover 43 feet would be fun to see but really not OMG impressive.

Yeah.

although my friends 27 foot retic is pretty intimidating.

rockdawg21
02-07-2009, 10:24 PM
Right, its a significant difference, but not an OMG difference.
I mean, modern day man has produced 8 foot men, so...

I guess when I think ancient stuff I just expect big numbers,
so I was hoping for a 200 foot long snake or something lol
I hear that about the 8 foot man, but that's not the point. The sheer size difference is tremendous. I'm talking about the average height being 8 foot versus 5'9". The weight of those 5'9" guys on average is about 150, but most 8-footers are 400 pounds.

If that's the physical size difference on average, that's not an insignificant thing by any means.

Plus, like I said, the sheer mass of the snake, 500 pounds (for the largest anacondas) versus 2,500 pounds is a big big difference!

rockdawg21
02-07-2009, 10:26 PM
You took most of the words out of my mouth rockdawg. :laugh:

I was going to say the length may not be super duper impressive (43 feet), but that weight (1.5 tons) is massive. The sheer crushing force psi would be amazing. And did you see the comparison of an 17 foot anaconda bone vs. this animal's bone? That is crazy.

I would be curious to find out if this snake could have eaten an average adult human, or would our shoulders still get in the way? I know present day snakes, if eating an adult, get stuck right around the shoulder area. Although some scientist suggest if an adult were layed on their side, a snake might be able to consume them (don't know how much truth there it behind that statment).
Yeah, I was watching something on APL a few years ago where they took a duck and put pressure sensors all over its' body. A 12-foot anaconda was tested for it's crushing power. The guy running the experiment estimated that the power would be kind of equivalent to a small vehicle on the chest of a human. Turns out, it was more like 3 buses!

Now if a 65 pound, 12-foot anaconda has that type of crushing power, I couldn't even imagine the power of a 43 foot, 2500 pounder! That's just unfathomable strength!