First of all, I’m not going to say that dinosaurs did not exist. However, I’m also not going to perpetuate that dinosaurs did exist. I am merely going to point out that there are more scientific anomalies in the theory of dinosaurs than there are evidence that dinosaurs did exist.
In fact, one of the biggest reasons to doubt the theory is that in fact there is no scientific evidence. “But wait”, you say, “what about the museums, all the bones uncovered by archaeologists, and carbon dating”? I will get to that in the following top ten list.
10 An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically
The Flaws: Bear with me for a moment and assume for a second that evolution is true and that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. Now consider that the reason we don't see any is because at one point the Earth was hit by a giant asteroid that obliterated the Earth and caused all dinosaurs to become extinct simultaneously. There are several problems with such a theory.
Firstly, for an event of this magnitude to have occurred to wipe out all the dinosaurs (except deep-sea dinosaurs, which I will get to later), it would have to wipe out all the rest of life, too. There are major problems with this.
1) If evolution were to be true and this event occurred, then it would mean that evolution would have to have started over from scratch from that point. This throws a big wrench into evolutionary theory. It would have been better if you were trying to support evolution to not even try to support the idea of dinosaurs.
2) Not to mention that all humans would also have been wiped out, so let's not even get into the red herring fallacies that try to argue how dinosaurs and humans existed simultaneously.
3) If such an event were to occur, it would mean that there would be archaeological evidence of a period of time, perhaps many millions of years, in which no life existed on Earth except maybe some surviving cave dwellers and deep sea creatures. However, no such archaeological evidence exists.
Secondly, with the probability of evolution occurring being so astronomically high that the possibility is not only 0 but far in the negative (not even going to get into this in this post), then the possibility that evolution could start life over, in the exact same way, from the exact same biological principles, a second time is just so astronomically absurd it's just not even funny anymore.
We're talking literally there are not enough numbers in the universe, times itself, to the power of itself, times infinity, to support how many zeroes would be required on the end of "one in x" chance of happening. In fact, the English language (or any language) does not even have a conception, not to mention a word, to describe how astronomically slim utterly ridiculous the chances of this occurring are. In other words, it suffices to say that this is simply impossible to have occurred.
Firstly, for an event of this magnitude to have occurred to wipe out all the dinosaurs (except deep-sea dinosaurs, which I will get to later), it would have to wipe out all the rest of life, too. There are major problems with this.
1) If evolution were to be true and this event occurred, then it would mean that evolution would have to have started over from scratch from that point. This throws a big wrench into evolutionary theory. It would have been better if you were trying to support evolution to not even try to support the idea of dinosaurs.
2) Not to mention that all humans would also have been wiped out, so let's not even get into the red herring fallacies that try to argue how dinosaurs and humans existed simultaneously.
3) If such an event were to occur, it would mean that there would be archaeological evidence of a period of time, perhaps many millions of years, in which no life existed on Earth except maybe some surviving cave dwellers and deep sea creatures. However, no such archaeological evidence exists.
Secondly, with the probability of evolution occurring being so astronomically high that the possibility is not only 0 but far in the negative (not even going to get into this in this post), then the possibility that evolution could start life over, in the exact same way, from the exact same biological principles, a second time is just so astronomically absurd it's just not even funny anymore.
We're talking literally there are not enough numbers in the universe, times itself, to the power of itself, times infinity, to support how many zeroes would be required on the end of "one in x" chance of happening. In fact, the English language (or any language) does not even have a conception, not to mention a word, to describe how astronomically slim utterly ridiculous the chances of this occurring are. In other words, it suffices to say that this is simply impossible to have occurred.
9 There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived
The Flaws: Yes, elephants exist, and elephants are large. However, an elephant, which is a fraction of the size of a Brontosaurus, has to eat for 18 hours every day in order to survive. However, even in ancient times, there was still only 24 hours within each 24 hour period (basic logic).
Since an elephant can't survive without eating 18 hours per day every day, and a Brontosaurus was supposedly 5 to 10 times larger than an elephant, then a brontosaurus would have to eat for around 90 to 180 hours per day. Yes, you read that right, and it's not a typo. It is logically impossible to eat for 90 hours per 24 hour day.
Even if it scarfed down food much quicker, it still comes nowhere close to having enough time to sustain itself. If it did absolutely nothing but eat and sleep, it still wouldn't even come close. Even if it never slept but only ate, still it would not even come close. That means that it could never even reach full size. That would be impossible. It makes no sense for a creature which could never get larger than a baby to even exist in the first place.
However, this isn't even the real problem with the existence of giant plant-eating creatures. The real problem is that there wouldn't even be enough food for them to eat (not to mention enough fresh water to drink).
Take the example of the Australian rabbit. This tiny animal in relatively large numbers has wreaked havoc on the local environment. Take the following excerpt:
If a few thousand rabbits can destroy entire ecosystems, then consider what billions of rabbits would do. There would be nothing left, for anyone. All plants would go extinct. That's what would happen if these massive dinosaurs roamed the Earth. There would not be any plants left to eat. Most plant species would go extinct.
Since an elephant can't survive without eating 18 hours per day every day, and a Brontosaurus was supposedly 5 to 10 times larger than an elephant, then a brontosaurus would have to eat for around 90 to 180 hours per day. Yes, you read that right, and it's not a typo. It is logically impossible to eat for 90 hours per 24 hour day.
Even if it scarfed down food much quicker, it still comes nowhere close to having enough time to sustain itself. If it did absolutely nothing but eat and sleep, it still wouldn't even come close. Even if it never slept but only ate, still it would not even come close. That means that it could never even reach full size. That would be impossible. It makes no sense for a creature which could never get larger than a baby to even exist in the first place.
However, this isn't even the real problem with the existence of giant plant-eating creatures. The real problem is that there wouldn't even be enough food for them to eat (not to mention enough fresh water to drink).
Take the example of the Australian rabbit. This tiny animal in relatively large numbers has wreaked havoc on the local environment. Take the following excerpt:
The rapid spread of the rabbit led to the destruction of large tracts of vegetation, leading to the extinction of many plant species. Loss of vegetation leads to soil erosion as the exposed soil is washed or blown away, removing valuable soil nutrients required for new plants to develop. This soil is typically deposited in waterways, causing siltation and destroying aquatic ecosystems (Rabbit Problems, n.d.).
Consider the effect of just these tiny creatures. Now consider the daily consumption of one single plant-eating dinosaur. At 13 tons, a Mamenchisaurus, similar to a Brontosaurus, would have to have eaten 1,150 pounds of vegetation per day. This is probably equivalent to about 10,000 rabbits, maybe more (that number is just an educated guess).
If a few thousand rabbits can destroy entire ecosystems, then consider what billions of rabbits would do. There would be nothing left, for anyone. All plants would go extinct. That's what would happen if these massive dinosaurs roamed the Earth. There would not be any plants left to eat. Most plant species would go extinct.
8 No one is allowed to question the Dinosaur Orthodoxy without extremely harsh criticism
The Flaws: The perpetuation of Dinosaur theory, just like Evolutionary Theory and the Big Bang Theory, has become more of a religion, an orthodoxy, than a science. People are expected not to question it, no matter what, at the risk of losing their job, breaking their careers, losing friends, being shunned by family, and being ridiculed by anyone who refuses to think for themselves. If anyone attempts to present scientific evidence contrary to the popularly held view, it is immediately dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or a "crazy religionist".
This is a big red flag. Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented.
Also remember that very, very few people, probably a total of mere thousands of people out of the entire world population, have ever done any real hands-on research into any of the scientific areas to promote evolution, dinosaurs, etc. As a result, you must understand that most people who accept evolution are only believing it by faith, because they have not done the research for themselves. Reading something in a textbook does not count as research.
If someone decides to write that men came from aliens (such as Scientology to some extent), you can't believe it just because everyone else does without researching for yourself. However, most people do not have the time, energy, money, or aptitude to do any real hands-on research for themselves, so they just believe what they read in their high school and college text books without questioning it. This is a serious issue; but not only that, you must accept that as a result, these people are believing in evolution by having faith (in textbooks), which is a religious belief, not a scientific belief.
However, keep in mind that despite the perception that most people believe in evolution and subsequent theories, that is untrue. In fact, most of the world is not atheistic; in fact as much as 80% to 90% of the world's population believes in some form of God.
The only reason it seems like more than 10% of the world believes in evolution is because evolutionists have a hold in the media and educational system. In fact, as much as 90% of professors and educational instructors do not actually believe in evolution, but for fear of their job and career they are forced to teach it. It's just that the 10% or less of people who hold an Atheistic view on the world tend to speak louder than everyone else.
This is a big red flag. Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented.
Also remember that very, very few people, probably a total of mere thousands of people out of the entire world population, have ever done any real hands-on research into any of the scientific areas to promote evolution, dinosaurs, etc. As a result, you must understand that most people who accept evolution are only believing it by faith, because they have not done the research for themselves. Reading something in a textbook does not count as research.
If someone decides to write that men came from aliens (such as Scientology to some extent), you can't believe it just because everyone else does without researching for yourself. However, most people do not have the time, energy, money, or aptitude to do any real hands-on research for themselves, so they just believe what they read in their high school and college text books without questioning it. This is a serious issue; but not only that, you must accept that as a result, these people are believing in evolution by having faith (in textbooks), which is a religious belief, not a scientific belief.
However, keep in mind that despite the perception that most people believe in evolution and subsequent theories, that is untrue. In fact, most of the world is not atheistic; in fact as much as 80% to 90% of the world's population believes in some form of God.
The only reason it seems like more than 10% of the world believes in evolution is because evolutionists have a hold in the media and educational system. In fact, as much as 90% of professors and educational instructors do not actually believe in evolution, but for fear of their job and career they are forced to teach it. It's just that the 10% or less of people who hold an Atheistic view on the world tend to speak louder than everyone else.
7 Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics
The Flaws: The laws of physics and gravity prevents the existence of creatures as massive as dinosaurs. There have been many attempts to justify this, but the fact remains that without changing the laws of physics, it is not possible.
In fact, some even tried to change the laws of physics by suggesting that gravity was weaker in the prehistoric era. However, this notion is pseudoscience. Anyone who knows anything about physics can tell you that such a notion is pure fiction.
Due to the principles of gravity, mass, and the limitations of muscular anatomy in any life form, it would not be possible for any animal weighing more than 20,803 pounds to be able to lift its own weight (Holden, 1994). However, the Brontosaurus is supposed to weigh over 70,000 pounds, and other so-called sauropods are supposed to be many times larger than that.
Then there is the issue of neck size - a long necked animal of that size would not even be able to lift its neck. Additionally, their blood pressure would be way too high to be able to live. Their heart would literally explode. For reference, a giraffe has a long neck, and even at its relatively tiny size in comparison to sauropods, a giraffe is at essentially the peak of blood pressure that is possible to live, having a higher blood pressure than any other animal.
It almost makes you wonder if someone is sitting in an office someone with a sinister look on his face and tapping the tips of his fingers together like a mad scientist, thinking, "heh heh hehhh ... I wonder how many laws of physics I can break and still no one notices, heh heh hehhh ..."
Then there is the issue with the laws of physics relating to flight. The giant pterosaurs could not possibly have flown, because their wing span would have to be far, far larger in order to support their massive weight. It simply was not possible. Whoever invented the giant pterosaur clearly wasn't very familiar with the laws of physics and flight.
It may have had something to do with the fact that humans didn't fully understand the principles surrounding flight until the early 1900s**. When you are making up a mythological creature, it can be difficult to make it fit within the laws of physics when you don't even know the laws of physics yet.
** Note: The Wright Brothers first achieved flight in 1903; the purpose of this argument excludes earlier flying machines like hot air balloons as early as 1783 which used different physics to achieve flight.
In fact, some even tried to change the laws of physics by suggesting that gravity was weaker in the prehistoric era. However, this notion is pseudoscience. Anyone who knows anything about physics can tell you that such a notion is pure fiction.
Due to the principles of gravity, mass, and the limitations of muscular anatomy in any life form, it would not be possible for any animal weighing more than 20,803 pounds to be able to lift its own weight (Holden, 1994). However, the Brontosaurus is supposed to weigh over 70,000 pounds, and other so-called sauropods are supposed to be many times larger than that.
Then there is the issue of neck size - a long necked animal of that size would not even be able to lift its neck. Additionally, their blood pressure would be way too high to be able to live. Their heart would literally explode. For reference, a giraffe has a long neck, and even at its relatively tiny size in comparison to sauropods, a giraffe is at essentially the peak of blood pressure that is possible to live, having a higher blood pressure than any other animal.
It almost makes you wonder if someone is sitting in an office someone with a sinister look on his face and tapping the tips of his fingers together like a mad scientist, thinking, "heh heh hehhh ... I wonder how many laws of physics I can break and still no one notices, heh heh hehhh ..."
Then there is the issue with the laws of physics relating to flight. The giant pterosaurs could not possibly have flown, because their wing span would have to be far, far larger in order to support their massive weight. It simply was not possible. Whoever invented the giant pterosaur clearly wasn't very familiar with the laws of physics and flight.
It may have had something to do with the fact that humans didn't fully understand the principles surrounding flight until the early 1900s**. When you are making up a mythological creature, it can be difficult to make it fit within the laws of physics when you don't even know the laws of physics yet.
** Note: The Wright Brothers first achieved flight in 1903; the purpose of this argument excludes earlier flying machines like hot air balloons as early as 1783 which used different physics to achieve flight.
6 Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in the backyards
The Flaws: If dinosaurs roamed the Earth and were everywhere, and these creatures were massive, gigantic beasts, then there should be overwhelming evidence everywhere we look. You would go gardening and find ten or twenty giant bones every time you tried to plant some seeds.
People would be building houses out of these bones because there was so many of them. Who needs bricks when you have fossils? Your kids would go play outside and occasionally come back with a petrified dinosaur bone. However, there has never once been an instance in which someone accidentally found a dinosaur bone.
(Pictured is a child holding a large dog bone.)
People would be building houses out of these bones because there was so many of them. Who needs bricks when you have fossils? Your kids would go play outside and occasionally come back with a petrified dinosaur bone. However, there has never once been an instance in which someone accidentally found a dinosaur bone.
(Pictured is a child holding a large dog bone.)
5 Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years
The Flaws: Even evolutionary scientists accept that carbon dating is entirely ineffective in measuring time. Not only is it ineffective with relatively short periods of time, but the entire theory is based off a premise that essentially says that the maximum amount of years it can be used for is 40,000 years.
This means that using radiocarbon dating to say that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago is like using a thermometer to measure the height of Mount Everest. The only people you will fool is the people who don't know what a thermometer is.
According to Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, an evolutionary geneticist from Stanford University, who wrote the book, "Genes, People, and Languages" which was published in 2000,
This means that using radiocarbon dating to say that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago is like using a thermometer to measure the height of Mount Everest. The only people you will fool is the people who don't know what a thermometer is.
According to Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, an evolutionary geneticist from Stanford University, who wrote the book, "Genes, People, and Languages" which was published in 2000,
The most crucial dates in modern human evolution are unfortunately beyond the range of the radiocarbon method, which has a limit of about 40,000 years (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000, p. 61)
Additionally, evolutionist Richard Dawkins, author of the famous book, "The Blind Watchmaker", had this to say about radiocarbon dating:
Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable.
It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years (Dawkins, 1986, p. 226).
So even the top evolutionary scientists in the world affirm that radiocarbon dating is impossible to use to determine the age or existence of dinosaurs. It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years (Dawkins, 1986, p. 226).
4 Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s
The Flaws: For a set of creatures that are supposed to have been so pervasive, so massive, and so populous to have never been seen in any culture's mythology at any time in known history (not even cave paintings), defies logic if the creatures had in fact existed.
Instead, the mythology of dinosaurs did not spring up until around the 1800s. Since then, and especially since the 1900s when Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (published in 1859) book became more popular, dinosaurs have become a pervasive part of society. Today, we see these prehistoric creatures in children's books, novels, movies, television, and every form of media.
However, before the 1800s, Dinosaurs were completely absent from mythology. We don't see it in Greek, Roman, or any other sort of mythology. Some historians claim that some ancient Chinese found a dinosaur fossil, but the evidence for this is merely anecdotal (in other words, there is no real evidence for this). You can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. And that is beside the point, as I will explain below.
If, as they say, dinosaurs roamed the Earth long ago, giant, massive creatures that defied the imagination, dinosaurs would then become the focal point of all of historical mythology. Not anecdotal evidence of something that might or might not be a dinosaur, here and there.
After all, it has been proven in the last 100 years since dinosaurs were introduced to us that once people caught onto this idea it became wildly famous. However, if it were true, it would have been wildly famous tens of thousands of years ago too. But it wasn't. Not a single absolute reference can be found.
Absolute reference is the key factor. Not a reference that might be a large whale or elephant ("leviathan" and "behemoth" in the Bible). If such massive creatures existed, there wouldn't be one or two ambiguous references here and there. No, if it were true then you would hear very specifically about giant massive creatures with giant heads, ferocious teeth, and tiny arms (Tyrannosaurus Rex), gentle giant long-necked creatures who were many, many times bigger than even the largest known creatures such as elephants (Brontosaurus), and super-fast and intelligent creatures with 9 inch claws and teeth and pack-hunting mentalities (Velociraptor).
Remember, not ambiguous references one or two times that might be something else. There would have to be thousands, even millions of references that are very specific. For example, it's not like we think that references to a dragon might be references to say, a large bird. No, mythology is very clear about dragons being large, reptilian, flying, fire-breathing creatures; and dragons are extremely pervasive throughout mythology.
Don't you think that if dinosaurs existed, myth-writers such as Homer would have capitalized on this in the "Iliad and the Odyssey" and other famous mythological writings and great stories? No, instead you find many mythical creatures like Cyclops, mermaids, and talking horses. But no references to dinosaurs.
We see absolutely no specific references to dinosaurs in mythology. Not one, single absolute reference. If history has taught us anything, fantasy creatures, even fictional ones, capture the imagination and become pervasive throughout mythology. Leprechauns, trolls, even dragons are a few of the famous creatures. But no mythology even referencing any dinosaurs. Not a single one. Not at any time in history.
Not a single time in history before the 1800s was any dinosaur specifically mentioned; but if it were true that they really existed, then many, many dinosaurs would be referenced countless times. Thus, historical evidence strongly suggests that the existence of dinosaurs is highly improbable.
Instead, the mythology of dinosaurs did not spring up until around the 1800s. Since then, and especially since the 1900s when Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (published in 1859) book became more popular, dinosaurs have become a pervasive part of society. Today, we see these prehistoric creatures in children's books, novels, movies, television, and every form of media.
However, before the 1800s, Dinosaurs were completely absent from mythology. We don't see it in Greek, Roman, or any other sort of mythology. Some historians claim that some ancient Chinese found a dinosaur fossil, but the evidence for this is merely anecdotal (in other words, there is no real evidence for this). You can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. And that is beside the point, as I will explain below.
If, as they say, dinosaurs roamed the Earth long ago, giant, massive creatures that defied the imagination, dinosaurs would then become the focal point of all of historical mythology. Not anecdotal evidence of something that might or might not be a dinosaur, here and there.
After all, it has been proven in the last 100 years since dinosaurs were introduced to us that once people caught onto this idea it became wildly famous. However, if it were true, it would have been wildly famous tens of thousands of years ago too. But it wasn't. Not a single absolute reference can be found.
Absolute reference is the key factor. Not a reference that might be a large whale or elephant ("leviathan" and "behemoth" in the Bible). If such massive creatures existed, there wouldn't be one or two ambiguous references here and there. No, if it were true then you would hear very specifically about giant massive creatures with giant heads, ferocious teeth, and tiny arms (Tyrannosaurus Rex), gentle giant long-necked creatures who were many, many times bigger than even the largest known creatures such as elephants (Brontosaurus), and super-fast and intelligent creatures with 9 inch claws and teeth and pack-hunting mentalities (Velociraptor).
Remember, not ambiguous references one or two times that might be something else. There would have to be thousands, even millions of references that are very specific. For example, it's not like we think that references to a dragon might be references to say, a large bird. No, mythology is very clear about dragons being large, reptilian, flying, fire-breathing creatures; and dragons are extremely pervasive throughout mythology.
Don't you think that if dinosaurs existed, myth-writers such as Homer would have capitalized on this in the "Iliad and the Odyssey" and other famous mythological writings and great stories? No, instead you find many mythical creatures like Cyclops, mermaids, and talking horses. But no references to dinosaurs.
We see absolutely no specific references to dinosaurs in mythology. Not one, single absolute reference. If history has taught us anything, fantasy creatures, even fictional ones, capture the imagination and become pervasive throughout mythology. Leprechauns, trolls, even dragons are a few of the famous creatures. But no mythology even referencing any dinosaurs. Not a single one. Not at any time in history.
Not a single time in history before the 1800s was any dinosaur specifically mentioned; but if it were true that they really existed, then many, many dinosaurs would be referenced countless times. Thus, historical evidence strongly suggests that the existence of dinosaurs is highly improbable.
3 A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one
The Flaws: You go to a museum and you see dinosaur skeletons. At least, you think you do. You see, those dinosaurs are amalgams of various things ranging from chicken bones, to random bones, to straight plaster casts. Not even the teeth are real. Various bones have been found that have been claimed to be a part of a dinosaur.
However, no dinosaur skeleton has ever been found. The only few that have been, have long proved to be a hoax. As a result, the only way to make a dinosaur skeleton for a museum is to, quite literally make it. That is, they have to create what they think it might look like by filling in 99% of the bones with other things to make what they think the whole thing would look like.
However, it is most probable that the few bones that have been found belonged to other animals. Thus, what you see in a museum is nothing more than an artist's rendition of what they think those dinosaurs could look like if they existed. If they put in a skeleton of a dragon, you would probably believe that too, especially if they told you in your class science book that dragons existed and could even talk English.
However, no dinosaur skeleton has ever been found. The only few that have been, have long proved to be a hoax. As a result, the only way to make a dinosaur skeleton for a museum is to, quite literally make it. That is, they have to create what they think it might look like by filling in 99% of the bones with other things to make what they think the whole thing would look like.
However, it is most probable that the few bones that have been found belonged to other animals. Thus, what you see in a museum is nothing more than an artist's rendition of what they think those dinosaurs could look like if they existed. If they put in a skeleton of a dragon, you would probably believe that too, especially if they told you in your class science book that dragons existed and could even talk English.
2 There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around
The Flaws: Presupposition is a philosophical term which means that you create the evidence based on an assumed premise. In philosophy, any presupposed arguments are usually dismissed.
To be more clear, the idea of dinosaurs was first imagined, and then scientists attempted to search for evidence that they existed. However, this is not how science works. This is anti-science, or pseudo-science. The scientific method dictates that in order to assume a valid scientific notion, it must first be discovered, and only then create the theories based only on the scientific fact.
Instead, however, dinosaurs were first imagined, and then entire skeletons were designed by creative artists; and then after they had what they thought might exist, they went out and tried to find evidence that their theory existed. They would find a bone, and think, "well, this might be similar to what I imagined a dinosaur bone would look like", while holding a cow or whale bone.
It is like drawing a picture of an imaginary creature that you think might be able to exist and then trying to find the imaginary creature in real life. It's not going to happen unless you make it happen. That's exactly what happened with Dinosaur theory. Could dinosaurs exist? Maybe. But is it probable? Not based on science as we know it.
To be more clear, the idea of dinosaurs was first imagined, and then scientists attempted to search for evidence that they existed. However, this is not how science works. This is anti-science, or pseudo-science. The scientific method dictates that in order to assume a valid scientific notion, it must first be discovered, and only then create the theories based only on the scientific fact.
Instead, however, dinosaurs were first imagined, and then entire skeletons were designed by creative artists; and then after they had what they thought might exist, they went out and tried to find evidence that their theory existed. They would find a bone, and think, "well, this might be similar to what I imagined a dinosaur bone would look like", while holding a cow or whale bone.
It is like drawing a picture of an imaginary creature that you think might be able to exist and then trying to find the imaginary creature in real life. It's not going to happen unless you make it happen. That's exactly what happened with Dinosaur theory. Could dinosaurs exist? Maybe. But is it probable? Not based on science as we know it.
1 Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean
The Flaws: An extinction-level event, such as a giant comet crashing into Earth, or perhaps a disease that wiped out all the dinosaurs, would only have impacted the land dinosaurs and shallow-water dinosaurs, not the ones in the deep ocean. If such an event occurred as the reason for why dinosaurs "went extinct", it would not have applied to the deep ocean dinosaurs which would still be there today.
We would see these dinosaurs of all sizes - gigantic, mid-sized, and tiny - all the time through deep-water trawls, fishing nets, occasionally washing up on shore, the occasional scuba diver eaten and submarine destroyed, and we would even see photographic evidence taken by deep-water submersibles. However, none of this evidence is present which means that most certainly an extinction-level event could not be the reason we don't see any dinosaurs on Earth. The only plausible solution is that they could not have scientifically existed.
We would see these dinosaurs of all sizes - gigantic, mid-sized, and tiny - all the time through deep-water trawls, fishing nets, occasionally washing up on shore, the occasional scuba diver eaten and submarine destroyed, and we would even see photographic evidence taken by deep-water submersibles. However, none of this evidence is present which means that most certainly an extinction-level event could not be the reason we don't see any dinosaurs on Earth. The only plausible solution is that they could not have scientifically existed.
So, is the theory of Dinosaurs a hoax? Perhaps. Or is it true, that giant dinosaurs roamed the Earth in prehistoric days? Maybe. However, is it likely that these mega creatures called dinosaurs existed? Not based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.
The only thing that is certain is that it is impossible to know for sure, without time travel. However, should our children be taught theories as if they were fact? This we can most certainly say for a fact: absolutely not, no more than you would tell them that dragons, leprechauns, or trolls exist. In fact, based on historical evidence, it is more likely that dragons and trolls existed at some point than it is that dinosaurs ever did.
References:
Anderson, J. F., Hall-Martin, A., & Russell, D. A. (1985). Long-Bone Circumference and Weight in Mammals, Birds, and Dinosaurs. Journal of Zoology, London (A) 207: 53-61.
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi. (2000). Genes, Peoples, and Languages. New York: North Point Press.
Dawkins, Richard. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton.
DinoBuzz. (n.d.). What Killed The Dinosaurs: The Invalid Hypothesis. Retrieved from https://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extincthypo.html.
Holden, Ted. (1994). Dinosaurs and the Gravity Problem. Retrieved from https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_dinosaurs01.htm
James , Frances C. & Pourtless IV, John A. (2009). Cladistics and the Origins of Birds: A Review and Two New Analyses. Ornithological Monographs, 66:1-78.
Lyons, Eric. (2007). Evolution and Carbon-14 Dating. Retrieved from https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=307&topic=59.
NPR News. (2012, December 9). Forget Extinct: The Brontosaurus Never Even Existed. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/forget-extinct-the-brontosaurus-never-even-existed.
Oregon State University. (2009, June 9). Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm.
Rabbit Problems in Australia. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.animalcontrol.com.au/rabbit.htm
Wozney, David. (2010, September 14). Dinosaurs: Science Or Science Fiction. Retrieved from https://loveforlife.com.au/content/10/09/14/dinosaur-deception-dinosaurs-never-existed-dinosaur-fossils-are-hoax-dinosaurs-scie
Share this:
ADD A COMMENT
79 comments
79 thoughts on “Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Theory of Prehistoric Dinosaurs”
Welcome my friend, Helper Cat says you need to register for that! :)
I am on the fence with dinosaurs. I look for a few hold nuggets in every thing I read. I might have found a couple of bronze ones in this article but sometimes that better than nothing. A few points I will make ( I could certainly make more) but on point
#10 you state …3) If such an event were to occur, it would mean that there would be archaeological evidence of a period of time, perhaps many millions of years, in which no life existed on Earth except maybe some surviving cave dwellers and deep sea creatures. However, no such archaeological evidence exists.
Ok support that with the specific “archaeological evidence” don’t just leave it at that. Also don’t put phrases like “except maybe some surviving cave dwellers and deep sea creatures” , open the door or close it , don’t leave it half open. You stated it would destroy all life on earth. Explain how. Don’t think you hit that one over the fence.
This isn’t a book, it’s a blog article.
#9 There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived. Ok well, you gave no creedence to theories from the likes of Kent Hovind who explains things including plants grew much larger then ( and then to him means 6000 years ago) when the earth had an ice dome over it and oxygen and pressure was much higher.
#7- You site Holden 1994 so I’ll have to check that out. Personally I don’t think scaled up would not be possible beyond 20000 pounds so I’ll have to see what Holden says.
#6 no has ever accidentally found a dino bone. Doesn’t sounds likely , pretty sure a few have.
#5 Radio Carbon dating. Ok no scientists in his right mind would claim to date what they believe to be 66 million years old with method known to be good for no more than 50000 years. They developed radio carbon dating and its limits as well as the age of the dinos. Obviously they claim to use other dating methods , who is saying this?
#4 – Dinos didn’t exist in mythology before 1800s. Ok but they did exist in statues from South America and elsewhere. I’ve seen Stegosaurus drawings from South America, Cambodia and elsewhere.
#3 – Ever heard of Trex named Sue ? There are others as well. Sue was by bone volume, the skeleton is 90% complete. Easily googled.
#2- not a lot of evidence or references to go with that one.
#1 – Sort of ties back into your #10 but I happen to like this one most of all. Seems more sensible but I can probably find all kinds of explanations out there as to why this probably isn’t true either but its the one I would like to hear experts discuss why its not true the most.
You’re asking for a book, while this is a blog article. Articles like this cannot go in such depth without devoting a book to each subject. Over the years I have done a lot of research from others who did a lot more research than me, and I merely summarized the info here in a “concise” fashion and still got a massively long article for a blog post. Gets a lot of readers though. It wasn’t intended to fully document every single point, just to point out some obvious flaws in the theory and point out that the entire thing is a myth and unsubstantiated.
Well, it’s a blog, ok, point taken but I appreciate you at least responding to it. I’ll use your #1 to be some people over the head till they can produce an answer for it. Thanks
Also, nice graphic from the Carnivores game, lol. I enjoy that game as well.
I looked this topic up because I have always refused to believe in dinosaurs even as a child. I KNOW internally that it is extreme elaboration if not myth entirely.
Just like in the justice system: motive, weapon, opportunity. The top echelons have all three and the theories just don’t click nor are they compatible with basic natural law (bird combined with reptile, e.g.).
I brought up holes in the carbon dating method in college and was literally ignored by my professors in front of the class.
My son’s extreme interest in these mythological creatures is what has driven me to find an excuse to tell him that Dino’s are not science nor schoolwork.
Theory of this magnitude can only be disproven with theory/common sense since the details and science are lacking. Also we are talking about a past the expanse of which we don’t know nor are we physicists or mathematicians.
Certain things we have to accept we cannot prove. Overall, I’m refreshed after reading your piece. I’d rather that be in the textbooks (encouraging people to remember that their brain is just as competent as anyone else’s here on this Earth) than any of the complete nonsense I’ve read in all of my classes except Communication and Mathematics.
Thank you for calling B.S. on this stupid fantasy.
An interesting article John, always enjoy a good alternative to what we are taught. One thing though, I collect fossils from cliff falls on the Jurassic Coast, Dorset, Uk and have found bones from Ichthyosaurs etc. I realise these are marine reptiles and not dinosaurs as such but does the finding of such bones not prove that something existed previously that is not there now?
I agree that many dinosaur ‘bones’ are replicas and/or fabrications but there are plenty of finds out there that are real and come from deep underground (in cliffs).
Those are probably not “dino” bones but just bones of normal marine life. You’d be surprised how wild the skeletons of normal animals like whales and rabbits look so different from the animal itself, look it up. Bones found could be from any number of animals, even extinct animals (such as the do-do bird or sabertooth tiger) that are not giant godzilla lizard creatures.
That said, some big marine creatures may have existed that are extinct today (for example, megalodon or whatever the lochness monster is/was), but like you said there is a big difference between marine creatures and “dinosaurs”. Even some species of whales were once hunted to the point of extinction, and possibly some were made extinct. Today, you don’t see any wolves in places where there used to be many; perceived as a threat, they were hunted until every last one was gone. Also, the American Bison was hunted to nearly the point of extinction.
There were certainly many creatures that have gone extinct over the past few thousand years, and if any bone does not apply to any known life forms (as if it were possible to really prove, which often it isn’t possible to prove), it may very well just be an extinct normal animal that used to be around just a few thousand years ago. Not a giant godzilla lizard creature.
Amen to your article. God created the earth and all things that dwell on it, and that was about 6,000 years ago. Who should we believe man or God?
And scientifically no bone can last 25 million years buried in the earth.
Hi
Very interesting points. Your most compelling points are the scientific ones. Specifically around physics. However, I have a question about dating.
What about other methods of dating that are not carbon 14 dating?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_dating
like uranium and lead?
All radioactive dating works generally the same and none can reliably predict any dates and all have been proven false at some time or another. The way the scientists use it is they reject any result that don’t fit their “billions of years” nonsense (which is most results) and only use a rare result that fits their preconceptions. Effectively, radioactive dating is simply used to confirm a researcher’s assumptions even if the real science says the opposite.
Results of radioactive dating methods, including all methods as well as uranium and others, vary widely – so widely that it simply cannot be used reliably as a dating method at all. The reality is that the only way to determine the age of a rock would be to have a person who was alive at the time it first originated in order to confirm the age of said rock. Since the human life span is much shorter, and writings of humans only go back a few thousand years, it is therefore impossible to have any human confirm the age of any rocks or geological materials, so therefore it is impossible to reliable date anything beyond a few thousand years.
Was jesus around when dinosaurs were alive? Please answer it’s for a christian school project due on may 9th.
First of all, keep in mind that it is absolute certain and proven historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived on Earth. No real historian worth their salt would deny the fact, unless they were outright lying. Jesus lived on Earth approximately 2,000 years ago. Even if dinos actually existed at some time period, Jesus would not have been around on Earth at the same time, since we can be fairly certain that everyone can agree that there were no dinos around only 2,000 years ago. Hope it helps!
Nice article. Dinosaurs probably did exist, but 65-230odd million years ago? That’s 170 something odd million years. What the latest animal to become extinct? Tasmanian tiger, some form of shark or bear. How long did it take for that specific species to become extinct since it’s birth? maybe a few thousand years? And hunting was the cause of extinction no doubt. And the armies led by the leader of the church to kill anyone with “heretical” knowledge.
Now over the course of that 170million years there must have been species that cropped up and lived for a few thousand years, maybe some only hundreds. Not every single dinosaur lived together at the same time for that exact same period of time. so much can change geologically and that long time. rivers and turn into seas or deserts, land mass shifts, super storms and floods, etc.
The air was totally different with more carbon in the air (or was it less), and so the feeding requirements would be different from today’s animals. If the were bigger then the plants would also be bigger?
Every now and then some of the species cropped up and reached evolutionary apex, and as such destroyed their own environment and starved themselves out. Thus many larger species may have only lasted a few thousand years.
Was there a civilization present that destroyed itself and many animal species in nuclear fire? If there is anything that might have been preserved, it has been buried under layers of rock so deep into the earth that we probably will never find them. Has anyone ever looked at the inside of empty crude oil wells/caverns?
The first time i saw a full chicken skeleton or a sheep skeleton – i had no idea what animal it was. A dog skeleton doesn’t even look like a dog. I showed my 7 year old daughter the dolphin bones in the museum – she vehemently refused to believe it was a dolphin skeleton because it didn’t look like dolphin.
One thing (of many) that really bothers me so much: T Rex, King of the Dinosaurs has tiny little useless forearms and they paint the full animal as a skeleton wrapped in brown or grey scaly spandex. What?? Those little arms could have had wings attached or tentacles or cartilage. Anything that would decompose easily would be missing and therefore the scientists – excited by the new discovery – forget these simple things.
The truth is that we may never know the truth. Dinosaurs probably did exist, but not as we know them. If we find parts of a mouse skeleton, we know it’s a mouse because we know what a mouse skeleton and the full animal looks like. Until we find a fully preserved dinosaur embedded in clay or frozen in ice in Antarctica then we will just have to enjoy dinosaurs as we’ve been told. And lets say a group does really uncover the truth – all the re-writing of history books, internet pages, new movies, new education, etc. either they’ll be laughed at, shut down, or won’t release it because what cluster-f-bomb nightmare that would be – it would be bigger than aliens! Actually what would really happen in that scenario is the same thing that happened before – a new multi-billion dollar industry born revolving around a “new” species (product).
Can’t wait for Jurassic World 5: The Cretaceous Chronicles: Ice Planet. “Malcolm finds a way!”
Also a few points to consider (read: keep you awake at night): The ocean probably was not as deep as it is today 100 million years ago. or was even far deeper.
The extinction level event could have caused most of the dinosaurs to devolve into savagery and eat each other to extinction. A flesh eating plague perhaps? After all, a few fossils and old rocks are science; the picture and behavior models are just fiction. If coffee didn’t sell, we would turn it into another dinosaur. probably.
You completely missed the whole point. It’s ok, cognitive dissonance isn’t your fault.
Your own question should open your eyes. TRex’s supposed hands are ridiculous. They would probably rot with atrophy.
How anyone could believe these things existed when they took sooooooooo much food and water to maintain, it’s beyond me. The weight of the big ones alone would have prevented their muscles from working.
Great! I agree with most of your arguments,but what about those fossils found by ordinary people? I know that some stories in the media about children playing a beach and suddenly finding fossils could be hoaxes,but what about Pliny Moody and the footprints that he found? He was an ordinary farmer,or that is what we know.
And what about the sightings of dragons, cockatrices and other other mysterious animals found in the Bible and medieval sources? It’s possible that some dinosaurs existed,but palaentologist made replicas to inflate the numbers and push their agendas? What about some dinosaurs like Atlascopcosaurus (named after Atlas Copco Co.),Drinker (named after Edward Drinker Coppe) and Othnielia (named after Othniel Marsh)? It seems to me that if somebody has enough money ,they can get a dino manufacturated for promotional purposes XD.
And last,what if those few real bones were the bones of the nephilim?
As we know a fossil can be created in as little as just a few months. The “fossil” could be of anything. Most likely, a horse or other common animal.
Dragons may have existed. The Bible does not specifically mention any animal that could not be simple a whale or elephant. It only says “behemoth” etc. Serpent could have been a dragon. Dragons may have existed, as there is historical evidence of dragons throughout the ages. But fire breathing may or may not have been a myth. There certainly is no scientific evidence for it.
Footprints have always been faked. It is too easy to fake a footprint. It proves nothing.
Regarding nephilim, you’re going to have to be more specific. You are referring to the Biblical nephilim, but the Bible is unclear what they looked like. They could have simply been taller humans. There have been bones of humans that have been 10 foot tall or larger. These humans as big as giants don’t exist today but they probably did in the past, especially pre-flood when Earth’s conditions were far different, oxygen levels where higher, more shielding from solar radiation, etc.
Ok I read the entire article and read many of the comments. Many bones can be mistaken for other animals, sure. But what about the skulls? I haven’t seen that brought up in the comments and it was conspicuously lacking from your article. What about the skulls? What about Sue, a T-rex skull found? What about the almost full skeletons found of various dinosaurs? There are articles and pictures of that.
I’m not a nay-sayer or anything like that. I’d like to prove these dino’s didn’t exist because as you stated in the article, the physics makes no sense. They’re too big, necks too long, mating would be ridiculous. But we got to cover all the bases here. Thanks
Yes, the skulls too. As shown in the picture, the skulls are easily mistaken for completely different animals, like the skull of the rabbit, for example, or the whale.
Could a meteor hitting earth, causing dust particles and other parts of earth to go into the atmosphere potientally wipe out the sea dinosaurs too? By this I mean that there would be particles of dust and other substances of rock going into the atmosphere and then blocking off the sun, thus causing the earth to freeze over and kill all living creatures on earth ?
No because the ocean is up to 7 miles deep. It would take thousands of years at temperatures colder than thousands of degrees below zero to freeze the ocean all the way down, and even then it probably would not come close to freezing the ocean all the way. Even if the Earth were 300 below zero for 100 years, it would only form a relatively thin layer of ice (maybe 10 to 100 feet thick) at the top which would insulate the water below. All sea life would be fine – except for mammals (which need air).
Don’t bumblebees defy the laws of physics? I’ve always heard they shouldn’t be able to fly based on their wings and weight…
Either way, good read. I love questioning the unquestionable.
Dinosaurs, government, etc etc.
Bumblebees do not defy the laws of physics. Science can prove how bumblebees fly. A quick google search will give you the answer to this. https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/08/bumblebee-flight-does-not-violate-the-laws-of-physics/
The local museum I’d been going to since I was a child has dinosaur bones on display. The last time I went there, the guide said the bones were all replicas, & the real bones were elsewhere. I was shocked. All those years I thought they were real bones, but they weren’t. None of the displays had actual bones. It was disappointing.
I’ve always looked for dinosaur fossils, but so far I haven’t found any. That led me to think… if there were so many different dinosaurs living for millions of years on Earth, wouldn’t a bone or at least a tooth come up someplace where I’d been digging?
Thank you for your comment! I will check that out next time. I guess they realized they better put the disclaimer that they are all fake and then add on a lie that the bones are elsewhere – even though none of the bones exist! The few that do exist, are not from so-called “dinosaurs” either.
I am glad to hear your story as I have not been to a dinosaur museum since I was a kid. But interesting to hear that not a single real (even so-called) dinosaur bone was in your entire museum, and they are all replicas. The children are all being hoaxed!
I also completely agree as it was one of my main points – if dinosaurs were so plentiful, we should be finding them all the time! But never has any human ever “accidentally” stumbled upon a dinosaur bone. This is compelling evidence on its own.
I saw a comment referencing skulls, you mention that alleged dinosaur bones are just bones from other creatures– what about the skulls? For example AMNH5027 – the disfigured t-rex skull? What animal could that belong to at 5 feet in length? Or is that completely fabricated as well?
Don’t get me wrong – your points about the dietary requirements of elephants compared to large sauropods and related laws of physics implications are very compelling. Just want to know your opinion on the skulls bit ^
Unlike the sheep that 90% of people of the world are – I have absolutely no trouble in accepting or reforming my understanding based on new information.
It is entirely possible that dinosaurs are nothing more than pure cash and wealth grab enterprises – strangely dinosaurs only seem to be discovered from crown owned land, and that freemasons always have a heavy hand in it, leads you to wonder why? Why with all the construction that goes on in the world – I’ve never heard of dinosaur fossils being found from construction / foundation sites – I wonder why? And I am an avid dinosaur fan so i do tend to keep up with dinosaur finds.
So enlighten me further please – I am all ears!
Whales and other creatures, elephants, mammoths, there are a virtually infinite number of options when enclusing the many extinct animals like sabertooth tiger and wooly mammoth.
Interesting ideas. I agree with some and “agree with more explanation” others.
I found a really interesting video on youtube that kind of explains what I mean about the “explanation”
For me, the jury is still out on this subject. I’m not convinced completely either way at this point, and I loved dinosaurs as a kid (okay, I still do).
Some of your arguments are ones that also have me questioning, like #1 (the meteor wouldn’t have affected deep sea reptiles), and #7 (their size would have stretched physics’ laws). Also, I too have done some reading online and there’s a lot of dinosaurs being created from one bone found or one tooth. That’s ridiculous to me.
However, some of your arguments don’t ring true for me, based on contradicting information I’ve read elsewhere, as they don’t really make sense as an argument.
First, you’re comparing the food volume per day required by a mammal (elephant) to that of a reptile (we’re told dinosaurs were reptiles). A snake can eat a meal and not eat again for a month. If dinosaurs were reptiles, that means they were cold blooded, and so the amount of food they would have required would have been not comparable to a mammal. Mammals need to eat to maintain body temperature, but cold blooded animals do not.
Second, dinosaurs actually have existed in mythology in most cultures for thousands of years. The word ‘dinosaur’ was coined only within the last 100 years or so, so of course you’re not going to see that word anywhere before then. Before that, they were called something else, probably dragons. Cultures all over the world have myths about dragons extending back thousands of years and the word ‘dragon’ appears in the KJV Bible over twenty times. Dragons are found in numerous cultural mythology and were described as various types, one being the flying reptile (pterosaur). The fire breathing thing is irrelevant as we never saw them so we don’t know either way. Cultures thousands of years old even have images depicted of dinosaurs long before we ever knew about them (https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/). The book of Job (KJV Bible) describes behemoth as able to drink up a river and describes its tail as like a cedar (really long and thick, like sauropods). Also, there are plenty of sightings in modern day by isolated peoples who describe fearsome creatures that seem dinosaur-like when described by the locals (saurian, pterosaurian). In the Congo River basin, the locals describe Mokele-mbembe (means ‘one who stops the river’) as sauropodian.
Third, if you believe in Noah’s ark, Noah could have taken young dinosaurs on board. Young reptiles are much much smaller than their adult versions.
Fourth, you state as a good example of dinosaurs being fake is that questioning dinosaur orthodoxy is met with harsh criticism. Well, that really isn’t proof of anything because no one receives harsher criticism than flat earthers; does that mean the earth must be flat? And heaven help you if you start telling people that the moon landing was faked. The hostile backlash from that must mean that we really didn’t go, using your argument.
Truthfully, I’m fascinated by the subject but secretly hope that dinosaurs actually existed (the little kid in me). But, I wouldn’t be surprised that the whole thing is some hoax perpetrated by the powers that be to promote their own agendas.
Fair points. However,
1) Paleontologists now admit overwhelmingly that even if the dinosaurs did exist, they were not cold-blooded, thereby eliminating the possibility of correlation with cold-blooded reptile feeding patterns.
2) Dragons are NOT dinosaurs. Dragons do not count as dinosaur mythology. The creatures in the Bible could have simply been an elephant and a whale. The point was that it is not clear and if there really were giant creatures then there would be very clear evidence, not ambiguous speculation.
3) Fair enough. It could be argued that Noah brought on dinosaur eggs or babies instead of full-sized dinosaurs.
4) Not true, actually it is possible that flat-earth mythology in recent years has been perpetrated primarily by the institution itself in a way to criticize and confuse those who disagree with the official agendas. Regarding flat-earth mythology, please see my articles about how flat earth is scientifically impossible.
It isn’t easy to sort out fact and fiction. Fiction includes things like flat earth, aliens, and reptilian people masquerading as world figures. Fact is things like the fact that there is no evidence for dinosaurs, big bang, evolution, o other popularized theories taught to us as fact when they are not a fact but pure speculation without evidence.
Regarding the moon landing, I can’t tell you whether it was real or not. However, it is possible to have been faked, considering a variety of factors. This doesn’t mean they couldn’t get on the moon – maybe they could. Maybe, they messed up and then to trick Russia into thinking NASA got there first, they staged it to cover up their failure (just like Apollo 13 was a failure, maybe Apollo 11 was also a failure for a similar reason but then it was covered up). This is plausible.
There are solid political and sociological reasons for this to have happened. However, as I have not studied it deeply, I will not assert whether the moon landing happened or not. If you yourself have not done the research, then neither should you say you know something when you do not know it but only believe what someone else and the media told you.
Thank you for your thoughts and I look forward to reading more of your replies.
never comment, but have to thank you
good to hear a like minded person.
and very well written. beautiful
What about Blue Whales, they’re larger than the biggest dinos and continue to have more than enough time to put on that weight.
They are not larger than the biggest dinosaurs, and they live underwater which has buoyancy negating much of the negative impacts of gravity from such a large creature. There is a reason land animals don’t get anywhere near as large as blue whales.
Wow. *clap clap* to you. You’ve truly convinced me dinosaurs are faked. Lets see what my teacher has got to say about this come Monday.
I am glad you enjoyed the post, although I am not trying to convince or persuade you to believe one way or the other, I am only pointing out the facts.
p.s. Your teacher is indoctrinated into a liberal system which fires anyone who disagrees with what the liberals are pushing, so expect extreme pushback, dismissal, and rejection of anything that disagrees with “popular” notions like Dinosaurs, the Big Bang, or Evolution. Expect to hear things like “conspiracy theory” and other similar liberal ploys and tactics.
Is the earth flat John?
Interesting you ask. Unfortunately no, the Earth is a globe. Check out my other articles why Flat Earth Theory is wrong. https://techreader.com/top-ten/top-20-reasons-why-flat-earth-theory-has-absolutely-no-scientific-basis-part-1/
I was just talking with a friend the other day about this. How so much pseudoscience is being forced on our kids and if they question it then they not only fail they are ridiculed. So poor kids at a young age are taught not to question the establishment, this is not only wrong but damaging to them becoming truly free thinking human beings.
They are shutting down free speech on collage campuses all over. But my argument with my friend I said well if there were so many dinosaurs and they lived for soo long here. Why don’t we ever find them anywhere? We are in construction and dig allot and find all kinds of stuff, but no dinosaur bones.
But for you CO signing for Darwinism can you give me one example of a changing of kinds? Like a monkey into a human. Not like a fish into just a different kind of fish. Give me one example of a changing of kinds?
I think the whole dinosaur “story” is a fallacy. I also think the 19th century “discovery” of Cro Magnon and Neanderthal man is a fallacy as well. When one looks into who was involved — Erasmus Darwin — darwin’s phenologist grandfather — and then phrenology techniques were applied to the skulls of the two supposed cave men–we have no clue what kind of creatures they were.
Then, as one continues reading, some French scientist-entomologist, who had access to the vegetation surrounding Cro-Magnon man, and it was dated at 20,000 years, lo and behold, that French scientist’s son goes roaming around in France in the Loire valley for a year and discovers fabulous cave paintings by cavemen! Amazing that no French shepherd in a 100 years who all took shelter in those caves ever mentioned those drawings.
Then, that same kid goes to South America for two years and — finds more cave paintings with the same shape hands like in France — all done with vegetable matter dye.
Give me a break. It’s all total BS.
Pretty decent article. My favorite part was the carbon dating fact. There’s no real concept of 1 million years. But saying there was no evidence of talk before 1800 i beg to differ. I went to Chichen Itza and there’s a jaguars eagle and some type of turtle looking bases and a feathered serpent they worshiped. Interesting to find out that where they found bones of the large dinosaur that they say could never fly.
Thank you. And by the way there is a big difference between pictures of jaguars and turtles in Chichen Itza (real animals that exist today), and supposed “dinosaurs”, of which there is zero talk of.
This was the most true thing I ever read. I loved it!
Thank you for this article. Simple and to the point. Jehovah God knows what He created and didn’t and when He did so. Such lies about His creation has gone on for so long that ones would believe the lie more so than the truth – Gen 1; Rev 4:11; Rom 1:20; and Psalms 83:18. In Jehovah’s new world on a paradise earth none of these lies about Jehovah’s creation will be remembered nor brought up again; read Rev 21:1,3-5.
If You want to be part of Jehovah’s heavenly kingdom rule over the entire earth and explore and discover the various forms of creation and not ever again be told lies about it come to know Jehovah God and His Son Jesus Christ and be drawn to them, read John 17:3; John 6:44; Psalms 37:11,29; and Isaiah 65:17-25. Perfect humans and living forever in harmony with All of Jehovah’s creation will be the Best Life Ever! ?
Read the book, “What Does the Bible Really Teach?” chapters 3 & 8
Amazing article! Similar to Edgar Rojas’ comment, I am too a young (19) born again christian and I am totally convinced that dinosaurs are a complete hoax to support evolution and while making billions of dollars in the process. I used to be fascinated by these giant mysterious creatures that roamed the earth millions of years ago, but as of recently I could not connect them at all with the Word of God. After sometime of researching, it was pretty clear to me that these creatures did not exist, yet so many people would like to hold on to their imaginative dragons theory. I wish this theory wasn’t taught in schools and to the public because it supports evolution which is a complete fraud and confuses many Christians and even causes them to question the Word of God. Thanks for the great information!
Hey John –
What about “Sue” the “T-rex” skeleton that is purportedly 90% complete and the actual fossils of which are on display in a museum, including a skull complete with earbones?
Total fiction. You are watching too many movies.
Take a look at this: https://io9.gizmodo.com/you-can-own-your-very-own-life-size-t-rex-skeleton-repl-1654674283 Looks convincing, eh? Nope, this is a total fake.
For only $100,000 you can own a very convincing “replica” of the “original” replica of a creature that never existed.
There are entire websites devoted to buying fakes to populate your museum. https://www.prehistoricstore.com
Their motto: “The museum where you can purchase every exhibitTM.” You can purchase your whole museum exhibit from companies who manufacture entirely fake skeletons of these mythical creatures.
From one of their fake skeletons, here is one of a fake T-Rex skull to use for museums: https://www.prehistoricstore.com/item.php?item=214300
All the “news stories” you see online about it are a total work of fiction. Wouldn’t you propagate a story, true or not, if you owned a news organization? Of course, because dinosaurs are very popular, and it’s cool. Youre going to get a lot of views for that post. But it is not true. Cool, but not true. It is truly a fantastical history story about the fictional “findings” of these skeletons, but that is all it is – fantastical. As in, fiction.
What’s wrong with replicas? You have 1 skeleton and 10 museums around the world. The best option is to make replicas of the skeleton so all the museums get one to keep the public happy while the original is kept nice and safe for study. Also original skeletons are sometimes too heavy to mount on display.
Nothing wrong with replicas, unless your original is a replica of something that didn’t exist and your purpose of using a fake skeleton is trying to say it did exist even though it never did.
Your evidence is incredible. I’m almost 22 years old and I’ve always believed in dinosaurs. Even my favorite movie since I was a child is Jurassic Park. Nowadays it’s Jurassic World.
However since I was little I believed in God (I’m Christian). Even many Christians have tried to mix dinosaurs and the bible. And in some ways I theorize it is possible, but it seems someone else already thought that too: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs
However, I don’t believe that theory much. If I was trying to mix dinosaurs and the Bible, I would believe that, but I don’t. Each time, I think more like you. It really seems like it is a big lie, especially evolution theory.
They have lived hundred of millions of millions of years? The earth has existed for millions of millions of years? They suddenly disappeared without reason? Why exactly dinosaurs and no other animals? Even they don’t know how really a velociraptor looked like!
It seems like a big business, as you said. And your’re right, believing in big animals is more acceptable today than believing in dragons, fish-women, little humans like trolls, etc.
Thanks for all this info, I’ll save it because it’s the only one I found!
Hi Edgar, thanks for your comment. I read the article you linked to, basically it is talking about the theory that the dinosaurs were killed during the Great Flood. However, there are a couple problems with that. First, the Bible says that all the animals were brought onto the boat, two by two. You can’t say “they were more dangerous” because if it’s all the animals, there were also lions and tigers and polar bears. It’s clear that God would have supernaturally made the animals docile during their time on the boat (just like He did with Daniel in the lion’s den).
The second problem with this theory is the sea “dinos”. Notice my evidence above regarding how there should still be sea monsters today, but there aren’t. Remember that massive whale sharks, great whites, and giant squids did all not get on the boat, they stayed in the water. So then all the sea “dinosaurs” would have also stayed in the water. The Great Flood could not have killed the dinosaurs. God only destroyed humanity in the Great Flood (minus Noah and his family), but God saved the animals. If dinosaurs existed, God would have saved them too. God would have asked Noah to build a much, much, much bigger boat!
Yeah I thought the same! I didn’t write the two points you wrote because my comment would be longer, but I agree with you. Dinosaurs should have entered into the boat because ‘dinosaurs’ are animals (if they had existed). And the second point is totally right! Sea dinosaurs should be alive nowadays!
I really appreciate your information because it is the only one that is useful on the net. In a few words, I think now that trying to dinosaurs couldn’t work from a Biblical standpoint. It is impossible! But when you believe that dinosaurs were real, you try to do anything to mix them with our world. Thanks again, and it is too sad to know that some people still try to defend dinosaur theory! 😐
Awesome article John. Very interesting !
If they weren’t real then who made this up and why? What could they have gained from this?
The myth of dinosaurs gives evolutionists a good feeling inside when they are confounded by cognitive dissonance that their evolutionary theories have no basis in reality. They like to have something to look at that makes them believe the Earth is millions of years old. Also, the fake dino “fossil” business is huge business, making billions of dollars, as well as it is really great for movies and makes tons of advertising revenue in museums and news stories. Dinos are big business, just like dragons. The difference is most people know that flying firebreathing dragons probably didn’t exist.
There are lots of reasons for the dinosaur myth to be perpetuated by the liars and the fooled people, in the pseudoscientific industries, digital media, advertising, and even for anti-religious atheists. Also keep in mind only a very few number of people are actually perpetuating the myth intentionally, the rest of people perpetuating dinosaur mythology are just going with the flow, they just blindly believe what they are told.
Thank you for this article. You make some impressive points slightly more elaborate than mine. I already knew a lot of what was in this article and more. The specific reason I’m commenting here is due to the paragraph about it being like an orthodoxy.
Something has baffled me for years regarding the ancient Egyptians and believe it or not it has led me to research the existence of dinosaurs. How could they have built such monuments without tools and today’s knowledge – my bet is they were knowledgeable and that this knowledge has been passed down through the ages. It would be passed from king to king to other important people etc. There is a lot to gain if you are enlightened and others aren’t.
Consider there was a world war 3 tomorrow and everyone dies except you, me and 100 other lucky people. We set about maintaining our race by reproducing. Me and you have the knowledge we have today regarding microwaves, TVs, How To harness electricity etc but the other 100 people don’t (let’s say they had Amnesia after the war). We could bring out an incredible invention the black and white TV for example. Of course we would know that there was nothing fantastic about it and that we were capable of so much more but the people we showed it to would work hard to accumulate such products, they would be at our knees and over time we would bring out the next version of each product ensuring that we always stayed one step ahead and always in control.
There has to be a reason we don’t know how the ancient Egyptians built such huge megaliths. I read that the pyramids also include mathematical equations like pi and the speed of light (google it). Why were there pyramids in several different countries when the Egyptians hadn’t traveled the globe? In addition to this you can also find huge megaliths all around the world that scientists cannot explain (look up Easter island, Stonehenge and hundreds more). This theory would provide an explanation as to why we were told dinosaurs existed as it means we accept that as reality and do not question the past.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the enlightened ones I alluded to earlier hadn’t found a way to harness natural energy like magnetism for example but have yet to share it with the general population and that the wisdom has been secretly passed down for thousands of years whilst keeping the average man in the dark.
I have grown to be skeptical of what we are presented with as reality. I often find myself searching for answers.
Whoever wins the war writes the history books do they not?
A man made lie to achieve whatever goal you had in mind for the planet. It makes me wonder if we humans are on a repeat cycle. When the population of humans gets so large that (they) the ones in charge hit the reset button on all of us i.e. nuke the entire population and start all over again. If you believe in the bible at which states we live in a dome look up operation fish bowl or operation Dominique very fascinating stuff. Me personally I believe dinosaurs were made up to achieve an illusion to keep the lies going. But why? That my friends is the million dollar question. Have we all lived this life before? Did the powers to be eradicate our population before essentially erasing the past before? Because if the answer is yes, you can easily use the same excuse again the future that dinosaurs were here. That is my honest take on all of this.
We don’t live in a dome, please check our my series on the 20 reasons why Flat Earth theory is ridiculous.
Great article! I’ve been telling my teachers that gigantic dino lizards don’t exist for years, now they will have to believe me!
Wow, this is truly one of the best I have read on this subject! No grammatical eras and excellent logic. You are a talented writer exposing the truth about dinosaurs. I can’t believe lamestream media outlets don’t ever discuss this. Anyway, thank you for this well crafted and hard hitting article. I do hope your next one tackles the retards who claim the Earth is flat – obviously the earth is round. – Gemma from Hawaiian Gardens in Los Angeles
Hi Gemma from Hawaiian Gardens in Los Angeles, thanks for the support. Sure I made a couple original arguments but most of it is well documented, I just compiled the evidence here, so I can’t take credit for that. Also I wrote another post talking about how it’s impossible for the earth to be flat. Obviously the Earth is round, and anyone who uses their brain can see that it’s ridiculous to think the Earth is flat (or that leprechauns or dinosaurs or unicorns existed, for that matter). Check it out.
Interesting article. Obviously, My position on dinosaurs has changed over the course of years. I do not believe all I was told regarding their existence. The theory of evolution has not even been proven for us. There are missing links all over. Besides, Earth is still a mystery, we keep finding always new things and species everyday. We have no idea yet even regarding the deep oceans. Oceans are still a mystery for most scientists and they have not yet begun to tap into that mysterious world.
I always suspected that those creatures never really existed. But I became more convinced the more I learned about nature. And man has always been good at making FICTION popular in the world. Dinosaurs are one of the most popular forms of entertainment in the world. And I believe they are one of the tools being used to create false ideas about where we come from. Evil vs Good. Like always.
Do you have an explanation for dinosaur fossils, foot prints, fossilized eggs? I’ve never heard anyone address fossils.
What fossils? What footprints? What eggs? Have you ever seen one? Show me one so I can believe in the fantasy of dinosaurs.
Check out:
https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-from-china/
https://doubtfulnews.com/2015/09/bigfoot-london-footprints-declared-a-hoax/
https://cosmosmagazine.com/life-sciences/great-dinosaur-fossil-hoax
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/
If you look hard enough, you can find lots of “evidence” for aliens from outer space too. The only difference is that there is no one trying to officially push everyone to believe in aliens.
The problem with Archaeoraptor is that the ones to expose the fraud were paleontologists.
Good article and I too hate when things are claimed like it’s fact when it’s really just an opinion with a title tagged onto it which gives it any more credibility than if it were a nobody claiming something beyond doubt despite not having any real grasp on how things have always been.
I like this entire article.
Thank you
Certainly interesting… I’ve always believed that some kinds of prehistoric “dinosaur” existed so many years ago, but now things a looking a little foggy.
The real question is, what in the world was going on oh so many years ago?
What actual evidence is there that the age of the earth is older than 40k years if carbon dating is meaningless beyond that number of years?
That is just the point, Carlos, carbon dating is useless beyond 40k years, so there is not actually any evidence proving the world is any older.
carbon dating itself has been proven a hoax. once upon a time in the 1980s, a rusted-out tool identified as a hammer from the 1920s was found in a texas riverbed. it was carbon dated to be something like 20000 years old.
That’s funny, yes carbon dating is very flawed
Carbon dating is not the only radiometric dating method. There are many others. Potassium-40 has a half life of 1.25 billion years, which is why that is used instead for longer periods of time.
K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) dating is just as flawed and for many of the same reasons. Please check out this post which describes why K-40 is also wrong: https://www.creationliberty.com/articles/kardating.php
Very good article. I’ve been questioning why dinosaurs have been “pushed” on me since I was a kid 30 years ago. My kids know more dinosaur names now then living animals and I am curious why we still push kids to learn about dinosaurs so much.
we should not teach this false science at school. In biological point of view dinosaur’s body does not follow any rules of living organisms, thats why I never believed in dinosaurs, however, all dinosaur movies are my favorite. For fiction movies or stories I think dino should stay but not for science. I do not understand how the whole world remained silent of such scam, why we teach this in school. when we cant dig out our great great grand parent’s bones (eaten by bacteria) or any other bones of all kinds of animals that had ever lived in this world how can paleontologists dig out clusterred dino bones all over the world. Seems like that’s the only animal ever fossilized. Above all if we have a minimum sense of mathematics we would not believe dinosaur like animal ever existed in this world. I want to see the end of this false science before I die.
Brilliant ! You have advanced the argument against Dinosaurs very convincingly – to me at least.
Enjoyed reading this. Ty!