31 replies to this topic

[HoRuS]

I think Dinosaurs have existed...
Maybe not exactly how people described them and maybe not with little "peanutbrains" but it's too extensive to be a hoax.
I agree with carbondating being inefficient and messed up, so maybe they were extinct closer to our time then archealogists "dated".

[sheepdog]

Of course Dinosaurs existed. How on earth would they have managed to keep silent all those people from all over the world that have dug up dinosaur bones, handled the bones, carbon dated them and put up the displays in the museums? Just can't happen. They are real. Just extinct. Like a lot of other animals that we do know for sure did exist, that are now extinct. Doo Doo Birds, passenger pigeons, and prarie chickens, all can be proven to have existed in written memory, but are gone now. Dionsaurs have just been gone longer and we only have fossils to know they were here at one time.

[darko100]

Dinosaurs existed for sure. It's pretty damn easier to believe in them than the moon / sun stuff. I've seen fossils (not by dinosaurs , but by some old animals , not sure what they were) and I don't get why somebody would fake it.

There are things whcih are easier to fake , and ones that aren't. The ones which are very very closed and require a lot of money (such as NASA missions) can manipulate. But paentologists are all over the world and they know what they do.

BTW , look at this site: http://lunatruth.com/

[Bikerman]

Alessandra, on 27 March 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

I don't believe dinosaurs ever existed. Paleontologists don't just "study" dinosaurs. They study all types of fossils some of which are real. The first dinosaur bone was not "discovered" until the 1800's. Since then, apparently, many different species have been "discovered". How could these bones have lain around for millions of years and only be discovered so recently? Does anyone know where you can see a "real" dinosaur bone as opposed to a plaster cast one? If dinosaur bones actually existed they would be worth millions of dollars being so very, very old, but I have never heard of great security or price tags of these objects. I have never heard of anyone trying to steal one and yet they should be incredibly valuable.

I'm not sure whether you are serious or not, but assuming you are :
a) The reason people didn't look for fossils before the 19th century is because they were worthless. It is only after Darwin published 'Origin' that fossils became popular and, therefore, worth something.
You can see real dinosaur bones in any decent museum. The plaster-casts are used for a lot of exhibits but if you ask nicely I'm sure you will be able to look at the originals.
c) Some fossils are indeed worth a lot of money. The reason you don't hear of such sales is because they rarely happen - museums tend not to like bidding on the open market. Up to 8 million dollars has been paid for dinosaur fossils.
http://www.forbes.co...1connguide.html
d) Your entire argument is what we call 'argumentum from incredulity/ignorance and is a classic fallacy of logic. Just because YOU can't answer some basic questions (and the excuse can surely only be lazyness, since google quickly supplies the answers you wanted) doesn't actually mean anything. In Science an opinion is valid only if supported by evidence, and an opinion based on ignorance or incredulity is completely worthless.

[k_nitin_r]

Dinosaurs went extinct before we came into being so it is hard to understand how they lived or if they even existed. If you look at the way a detective examines a crime scene and determines what may have happened without having been there at the time of the crime, you can imagine what scientists and researchers do to study dinosaurs. Whenever fossils are collected, scientists and researchers attempt to connect their new findings with findings of the past. They try to fit everything together as pieces of a puzzle. When you get a set of bones, you cannot necessarily fit them together as they were intended. To understand how the bones fit together, existing fossils are compared and based on the evolution theory, scientists determine how the parts should fit together. For example, think of the eyes of all species living today. Based on most of the species that we know, we can tell that almost all species have two eyes located horizontally adjacent to each other, barring a few exceptions.

It is hard to think of ourselves as a part of an evolution that started off from the ocean. We do not have the ability to breathe underwater. We do not have reptilian scales like birds do on their feet. Because we are so different from the fish and water-dwelling unicellular microbes that were supposedly the common point of almost all species, it is hard to imagine that the two could be somehow related. All of the species (or at least almost all of the species) of plants that contain chlorophyll are known to use sunlight to turn water and carbon dioxide into glucose and oxygen. Therefore based on the knowledge that we have of existing plants, we can determine that just about any other plant fossil that we find containing chlorophyll was a producer of oxygen (and a consumer too, when they do not have access to light, water, or carbon dioxide).

[Bikerman]

k_nitin_r, on 05 April 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

For example, think of the eyes of all species living today. Based on most of the species that we know, we can tell that almost all species have two eyes located horizontally adjacent to each other, barring a few exceptions.

Sorry but that just isn't true.
There are somewhere over 50,000 species of Spider - none of which have two eyes. Then we have many other species of insect, crustaceon and arachnid with more than 2 eyes.

Quote

it is hard to imagine that the two could be somehow related. All of the species (or at least almost all of the species) of plants that contain chlorophyll are known to use sunlight to turn water and carbon dioxide into glucose and oxygen.

Since the function of chrolophyl is to do exactly that, then it would be extremely unlikely to find a plant which possessed chlorophyl and DIDN'T metabolise in such a manner...

Quote

Therefore based on the knowledge that we have of existing plants, we can determine that just about any other plant fossil that we find containing chlorophyll was a producer of oxygen (and a consumer too, when they do not have access to light, water, or carbon dioxide).

But that actually tells us very little.