I didnt want to tack this onto the old Intelligent Design (sic) thread, so I thought I’d lump them together in this new thread.
It’s roughly the same story told from two slightly different perspectives.
Have a read.
Interesting: may I pick out a couple of quotes
"With its sharp teeth, they suspect it was a predator. "
This seems to show a very conservative scientific approach, a great reluctance to reach any conclusion without significant proof.
I might have said, “With its crocodilian shape, and sharp teeth, it is fairly certain to have been a predator”.
Scientists being careful.
The other article seems to try to deny the statistical results obtained, or to provide excuses as to why they got the “wrong” result:
“Their prayer would be an appeal to a personal being (a God?) who decides how to respond to the request. But a prayer study cannot be controlled if a personal being of any sort is determining the outcome. Negative results do not indicate that such a personal being doesn’t exist – they indicate that the researchers have not figured out how to control him.”
Another way of saying “There is no evidence that God does not exist, therefore he must exist.” , despite a lack of confirmatory evidence?
Religious god-bothering nutters donning blindfolds at midday, and then swearing it was midnight.
Not that I have any sort of bias on this one. 
Nao