Is it true that dinosaurs never existed.

That all the fossilized bones they have on display in museums are "replicas"?

Please listen to this delusional flat Earther explain why dinosaurs never existed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubkZVzVv4Nc

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Where you think fossil fuel comes from ignorant

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      red herring

      fossil fuel mostly comes from plants, algae, and bacteria. Dinosaurs contribute almost nothing to fossil fuel.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But they used to in the middle stone age bc

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were killed and buried in the flood.

    If you didn't notice when you went to the Grand Canyon, there is no notable erosion or channeling between layers of rock supposedly millions of years apart. And if that canyon was formed over millions of years from a small river, the canyon walls would be far more eroded.

    Fossils don't form over many years with dust slowly accumulating on them until they're buried. They form under special circumstances like rapid burial in sediment from flood waters.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "dinosaurs" are simply extinct large animals of the past and co-existed with humans. We don't know anything else about them, including what they ate or how they looked. Everything we "know" about how they looked are simply artist renditions and most likely wildly inaccurate.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >umm why aren't we finding millions and millions of fossils in our backyards?
    and towards the end
    >why has errosion and weathering not destroyed all these supposed prints and fossils that are supposedly millions of years old?
    What an absolute retard.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The class “Dinosauria” was originally defined by “Sir” Richard Owen of the Royal Society, and Superintendent of the British Museum Natural History Department in 1842. In other words, the existence of dinosaurs was first speculatively hypothesized by a knighted museum-head “coincidentally” in the mid-19th century, during the heyday of evolutionism, before a single dinosaur fossil had ever been found.
    >Megalosaurus was, in 1824, the first genus of non-avian dinosaur to be validly named. The type species is Megalosaurus bucklandii, named in 1827. In 1842, Megalosaurus was one of three genera on which Richard Owen based his Dinosauria.
    ???

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, three species of dinosaur had been found when Owen classified them together. I mean technically they weren't dinosaurs until he named them dinosaurs, but they retroactively became dinosaurs once he did the naming. Or they always were dinosaurs but weren't called dinosaurs yet?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        sorta like saying elephants were speculatively thought to exist before a single elephant was ever discovered....

        tautologically true because in the few minutes between the discovery of elephants and the naming of elephants, they technically weren't elephants. The name had not yet been given to them.

        it's also a pretty retarded and dishonest thing to say since it implies they weren't the same animals we think of as elephants before they were named.

        yes, its like dark matter, it has to exist to for space physics to make sense, but we have no actual proof that it actually exists, only the effects if it theoretical existence

        Dinosaur fossils were found and described well before Dinosauria as a group was erected which is contrary to the statement in the description

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Dinosaur fossils were found and described well before Dinosauria as a group was erected
          they weren't dinosaur fossils before Dinosauria was erected though.

          New Jersey didn't exist before it was named.

          it's a word trick. You confuse the name with the thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      sorta like saying elephants were speculatively thought to exist before a single elephant was ever discovered....

      tautologically true because in the few minutes between the discovery of elephants and the naming of elephants, they technically weren't elephants. The name had not yet been given to them.

      it's also a pretty retarded and dishonest thing to say since it implies they weren't the same animals we think of as elephants before they were named.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yes, its like dark matter, it has to exist to for space physics to make sense, but we have no actual proof that it actually exists, only the effects if it theoretical existence

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The idea that birds evolved from some unknown ancestors was certainly being tossed around in England and France at the time. But evolutionists of the day thought animals evolved to become larger over time, not smaller. So even when Owen erected the Dinosauria based on the synsacrum everyone thought it was an odd coincidence. Nobody seriously considered the possibility that birds evolved from dinosaurs until about 1860 when Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx were discovered.
        The theory was laughed at until it wound up being obviously true. After that creationists covered it up so successfully that most people who are aware of the idea think it's a modern discovery.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          werent they aware of island gigantism and island dwarfism

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think so, but even if they were, the views on evolution didn't include the possibility that birds evolved on an island.

            more typical were ideas like Lamarckism and the thought that birds may have evolved in many different places from many different ancestors.

            Darwin didn't publish until almost 20 years after dinosaurs were named, and before his work evolutionary views existed but were a mess.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            One of the problems they had was trying to get evolution to agree with the bible, and a lot of scientists at the time believed the earth to be about 6000 years old, and the great flood to have occurred about 4000 years ago.
            Not enough time for birds to have evolved in one place and spread in all their forms all over the globe.
            This view wasn't fixed until about the same time Darwin published his work, and Archaeopteryx was discovered. So everything came together in about 1862 when people realized the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old, birds evolved from dinosaurs, and presumably had a single ancestor.

            Foster's rule wasn't formally published until 110 years later, though perhaps Darwin and others made observations on the Galapagos that alluded to it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Foster's rule wasn't formally published until 110 years later
              to put that into perspective,
              the idea of island dwarfism is about as old as bell bottom jeans, computer printers, gene splicing, mood rings, and anon's parents.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The theory was laughed at until it wound up being obviously true.
          I mean, not really. Birds from dinosaurs was a fairly popular hypothesis in the 1920s and 1930s. And I don't mean the stegosaurus variant, but Felső-Szilvás' work, who already speculated on the'New' 'From running to flying' rather than 'From gliding to flying' thing, too, and got the evolution of feathers from scales essentially correct within the limits of his time (genotypes and the radical changes they allow weren't understood yet).
          Given all the fossils we got out of Mongolia at the time, if it weren't for the Chinese warlord era limiting geological work (though Amadeus William Grabau did what he could), we probably would've had an essentially modern understanding of dinosaurs by 1930.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Birds from dinosaurs was a fairly popular hypothesis in the 1920s and 1930s.
            I specifically mean the period from 1840 when dinosaurs were named to 1860 when Archaopteryx was discovered.

            at that time the link between dinosaurs and birds was obvious, but laughed at.

            feathers probably didn't evolve from scales. There's no known mechanism for it to happen.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            specifically Owen's problem is that he erected Dinosauria on the synsacrum, a bird trait.

            Which would suggest that bird were descendants of dinosaurs, except naturalists of the time believed something like Cope's Rule, that animals got larger over time rather than smaller.

            so it wasn't until 1862 when Archaeopoteryx was described as a small dinosaur and then found to have feathers that people realized birds were actually dinosaur descendants. Up to that point it was just considered an interesting similarity that only birds and dinosaurs had a nicely fused synsacrum.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              basically, a synsacrum in birds and dinosaurs was an interesting coincidence

              A synsacrum, ascending process of the astragalus, cannon bone, reduction of manual and pedal digits, patent acetabulum, and pneumatic pleurocoels including pulmonary diverticulae, was more than a coincidence.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              it's also interesting to note that Archaeopteryx was originally described as a species of Compsognathus. A dinosaur

              it wasn't until feathers were found 4 years later that it was classified as something other than dinosaur.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Owen described one of the very first Archaeopteryx species, meaning he knew full well that birds were descended from dinosaurs and lived long enough to prove his bird/dinosaur hypothesis true.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this means when the paleoschizo complains about "feathergays" he's complaining about the guy that named dinosaurs in the first place. Dickie Owen was the very first person to recognize that birds were dinosaurs, and he fricken named them.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Cope's Rule
              How did they cope when that was deemed wrong?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                they gave up on replacement and said just like some chimps never evolved to be humans, some dinosaurs never evolved to be large

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Please listen to this delusional flat Earther
    I will not

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's true that a lot of dinosaurs on display are casts, and all dinosaurs on display have some cast bones.

    Most museums have some real dino bones on display as well though. With a bit of practice a person can spot which bones are real and which are replicas. Also if you look at enough displays you learn which particular replicas are being displayed, since a lot of museums use casts of the same sets of bones.

    there's way too many dinosaur bones sitting around in the desert for them to be entirely fake though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think the argument is "all those bones are fake", it's that the bone belonged to a creature that was not a dinosaur.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it's that the bone belonged to a creature that was not a dinosaur.
        Yep, and that's an argument from ignorance.

        if a person doesn't believe in dinosaurs, the only way to rule out the bones belonging to dinosaurs and that means studying the bones of literally every living creature in the world.

        which paleontologists do, but youtube conspiracy theorists don't do. So if I say it's not a fish or a mammal because it lacks epiphysial plates, the youtube guy isn't going to know what I'm talking about. Same if I say it's not a mammal because it has one occipital condyle and mammals have two. Or it's not a crocodile because the verts are amphicoelous grading to opisthocoelous. Or it's not a marine lizard because it has pneumatic pleurocoels and it's not a lizard because it has pre and postzygopophyses.
        He doesn't know what that means because he hasn't studied the bones of literally every animal in the world while I have. So I already know anything he says it is, we've ruled that out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it's that the bone belonged to a creature that was not a dinosaur.
        Yep, and that's an argument from ignorance.

        if a person doesn't believe in dinosaurs, the only way to rule out the bones belonging to dinosaurs and that means studying the bones of literally every living creature in the world.

        which paleontologists do, but youtube conspiracy theorists don't do. So if I say it's not a fish or a mammal because it lacks epiphysial plates, the youtube guy isn't going to know what I'm talking about. Same if I say it's not a mammal because it has one occipital condyle and mammals have two. Or it's not a crocodile because the verts are amphicoelous grading to opisthocoelous. Or it's not a marine lizard because it has pneumatic pleurocoels and it's not a lizard because it has pre and postzygopophyses.
        He doesn't know what that means because he hasn't studied the bones of literally every animal in the world while I have. So I already know anything he says it is, we've ruled that out.

        The upshot of this is
        If we find a batch of bones in the desert,
        and they don't belong to any known type of animal
        and they apparently don't belong to dinosaurs

        they must belong to some other group of unknown animals that certainly aren't dinosaurs but look just like them. So all he accomplishes is saying the NAME dinosaur isn't real, while the bones and animals clearly were.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        or to flip it around

        if he wants to say they're whale bones he'd have to show us a whale with bones exactly like that. Which he can't because whales don't have reptile bones.

        if he wants to say it's a crocodile, he'd have to show us a crocodile with bones exactly like that which he can't because crocs lack several of the spinous processes of the vertebrae that dinosaurs have.

        if he wants to say they're giraffes or elephants or any other mammal he'd have to show us the epyphysial plates, which are mysteriously missing.

        he can't point to which animals those bones came from, because they don't exist. Those bones came from animals unlike anything he's ever seen aside from birds. And they're pretty big to be bird bones.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *