I’m always happy to see my reader count going up, and to see a larger diversity of websites referring back here. Today I noticed a new referral: a forum linking to my post on how sauropods got blood up their necks. Awesome!
Turns out there is at least one person on this planet, the admin of this conspiracy theory forum, who thinks that dinosaurs never existed, and that they were invented by the freemasons. Why? Just because. Go forth and read all the hilariousness, it’s as delusional as creationist tripe but more exotic. The link back to my site was in actuality a quote-mine used to bolster an irrelevant and stupid argument.
The whole thread is comedy gold. As a public service, I will herein address this dude’s qualms.
There should be no carbon 14 in dinosaur bones (it should have all decayed after 30 million years) yet they find carbon 14 in dinosaur bones.
No, they don’t.
150 of the first species were discovered by just two guys who both had incentives to lie. One of them worked at Yale (can you say skull and bones?). Prior to this no one ever discovered or collected an entire dinosaur skeleton.
Yes, I can say skull and bones. Not exactly a tongue-twister.
No, those two guys merely contributed (and lost!) a lot of dinosaur specimens during the Bone Wars. The first description of a dinosaur was done by William Buckland in 1824 (citation), before either Marsh or Cope were even born. The first complete skeleton discovered was of Iguanodon in 1834, and it was in England. Sorry.
Soft tissue matter shouldn’t be in a 64 million year plus bone, yet they found it in dinosaur bones.
What a shame. Soft tissue preservation is when palaeontology is at its coolest. While it is rare – and hence great when discovered – it is by no means impossible, and can happen under a variety of conditions, most often microbially-mediated. Here’s a recent review paper specific for dinosaurs and other Mesozoic vertebrates.
DNA which has an even shorter half life than carbon 14 was tested and successfully analysed!
Nope, all reports of dinosaur DNA are from the times when DNA sequencing was not done very rigorously. For example, the most celebrated of these dinosaur DNA papers, from 1994 (linky), was found to be wrong just after it was published, with at least 4 rebuttals published directly afterwards in the same journal (1, 2, 3, 4). All these reports are just of human contamination (see Pääbo et al., 2004), and they pretty much disappear once proper sequencing methodology and clean rooms for aDNA work were established.
Dinosuars don’t really make sense, the long necked ones for example can’t raise their necks unless they had 10 hearts going up their neck!
If everything that doesn’t make sense doesn’t exist, then how come you are still here?
In all seriousness, the large dinosaurs have no extant analogues – they dwarf elephants and giraffes. Model-based research is the only way we have to study their biomechanics, but these are always done with biological limitations in mind. That is why the multiple-hearts hypothesis failed and is not taken seriously.
I also think it’s interesting how the new dinosaurs “discovered” kinda suck compared to the old ones, just like the monster designs in Star Wars went down hill.
Jar Jar Binks does suck. I don’t agree with the new dinosaurs not being as cool. We now know they had feathers. You might think they look less frightening than Jurassic Park-style scaled dinosaurs, but I suggest you try going head-to-head with a large bird. Those things are terrifying even though they are fluffy.
And why does this even matter as to whether they existed or not? Trilobites weren’t scary, but they still existed.
Fakes. The examples of fakes being discovered are numerous, 70% of Chinese marine fossils are estimated to be fakes. They can make them with chicken bone and plaster (would explain the C-14 and soft tissue). Why should we believe that only some of them are fake?
Fakes exist everywhere, but their existence is testimony that dinosaurs did exist. Think of it economically. Real dinosaur bones sell for a lot on the black market. Therefore, to make quick money, you try and fake a real bone. If the real bones didn’t exist, there would be no fakes because they would be worthless.
Of course, I only make that argument because in a debate as intellectually-rigorous as “Did dinosaurs exist?”, anecdotal evidence (“I was at a dinosaur dig and found bones myself after painstaking work”) shouldn’t count.
it’s possible the Skull and Bones society (see Anthony Sutton’s book for an explanation of who they are, what they do, and why they are so influential) may have created the dinosaur myth, exploiting the uncle of one of the dodgy researcher into funding it. Why would they do this?
The explanation is that if you don’t accept dinosaurs as real, you’re left with a lot of questions about evolution and the age of this planet.
No. Trilobites. Belemnites. Haikouella. Acritarchs. Archaeopteris. Just a handful of organisms older than the dinosaurs.
I am quote-mined further down on the first page, where Admin posts my paragraph explaining the outdated multiple-hearts-in-sauropod-necks hypothesis. He follows it up with this doozy:
Here’s the simple solution to your questions Archeologists, the con artist from Yale was like “let’s make a big giraffe like dinosaur” and didn’t think it through. That’s why you have impossibly long necks.
Same with t-rex. The dodo bird, flightless albatross, etc. were all the rage back then, so he was like “let’s make a dino with redundant arms”.
Archaeologists don’t study dinosaurs. Sauropods are known to have long necks because of their very large and numerous cervical vertebrae.
T-Rex had tiny arms, but only in relation to its body. It could still have ripped your head off with its hands. They were not redundant, except if your only reference on T-Rex biology is this:
The other four pages are just troll comments (the trolls are the reasonable ones, believe it or not!) and more repetitions based on the above themes which he usefully summarised in the first post, or just plain irrelevant links.