ok what the fuck. can somebody provide evidence of the theory

>>8474229
I hope you know you're fucking retarded and a waste of oxygen.

>>8474233
show me proof. The vast majority of species are built from only a couple of fossils. The only reason they reconstruct them into "dinosaurs" is because they had a working theory of "dinosaurs" before they discovered the fossils. From the very start of paleontology it has circumvented the scientific method on its most basic assumption. Now we are 170 years deep into this pseudoscience so it seems real. People in the future will mock us for believing in dinosaurs like we mock people who believe in unicorns.

>>8474229
lol

>>8474229
> They decided that dinosaurs turned into birds, then went out and found evidence for it after.
How do you think science works?
You walk out in the woods and find some interesting, lifechanging and scientifically revolutionizing facts?
Guess what, you gotta know what to search for or at least have an idea about it.

File: T_Rex_Dinosaur_Fossil_Skull_Large_1-500x500.jpg (67KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x500px

This skull came from something, OP.

>>8474250

>what is analysis?
>what is taking a signal with errors in it and extrapolating out what the original signal was?
>what is doing pattern analysis on a small sample size?
>noisy samples can't be corrected!

Jesus christ you sound dumb, I would hate to have to interact with you in real life.

>>8474229

This is why /sci/ needs to stop with the shitposting and put proper discussions up. We're getting so bored of the shitposting that we just resort to baiting. Vicious cycle. completely circular.

>>8474264
my point is that they theorized that dinosaurs turned into birds, then suddenly tons of evidence started popping up. They are seeing in the fossils what they want to see. Its the opposite of the scientific method. Its gone so far that some paleontologists are even suggesting that ALL dinosaurs had some type of feather or feather-like structure. If the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is so obvious and widespread that they can make claims like that, then why wasnt there ANY evidence of feathers for the first 150 years of dinosaurs. It was only after the theory became popsci that the fraudulent chinese started pumping out fossils that supposedly proved feathered dinosaurs. Too bad that most paleontologists never see the original fossils and just take these chinese companies at their word that the molds are authentic. Its an embarassment for science. No other field gets away with these kinds of assumptions.

>>8474265
plaster mold of supposed original fossils. The problem is that the vast majority of major fossil discoveries happen around shady circumstances. Sue, for example, was found by a commercial fossil hunting firm that sold the skeleton for $12 million. They supposedly found sue by noticing some of the fossils just sticking out at ground level on some guys ranch. The rancher even indicated that he thought it was strange because he had never noticed them despite riding through that field hundreds of times.

There is a patter where you will find that all big discoveries were done be well connected and well funded individuals. You will never find a case of some amateur or some disinterested individuals finding something significant. Amateurs find a handful of fossil fragments etc. While professional fossil hunting operations seem to hit the jackpot and find hundreds or thousands of fossils at once despite us being told that fossils are extraordinarily rare and spread out. They then send the "fossils" to chinese companies to make plaster molds of which are sent to universities. The actual fossils for a lot of these game changing theories never actually see independent study.

Fossils are artifacts produced by a fringe group of purported researchers who reject the principle of extant Biology. Bakkerists claim that they are the remains of dead Animals that have been preserved by a nebulous "fossilization" process which has never been observed in nature and has never been replicated by modern Science.

kill yourself, honestly

File: IMG_4539.jpg (72KB, 719x503px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 719x503px

Is this new information or something?

File: WhyDoesGod.jpg (107KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 450x338px

>>8474264
Here's a brain teaser for all you who drink the Kool-Aid:
> Ancestor of birds was a feathered, flightless reptile called the Archaeopterix.
> Archaeopterix lived 65 million years ago.
> 65 million years ago, an asteroid struck Belize
> Dinosaurs larger AND smaller than Archaeopterix were wiped out to extinction
So how did the Archaeopterix survive?

> Inb4 it flew away - Archaeopterix could not fly
> Inb4 ohmygod he makes a valid point. He must be /pol/

>>8474364

Here's THE meme:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoavis

File: jimuwat.png (152KB, 438x420px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 438x420px

>>8474229

>>8474229
Correct! Also the universe is just 5000 years old, the earth is flat, the moon hollow, the sun orbits the earth, woman are satans wifes and there are real swamp dragons living in Africa.

File: not even trying.jpg (48KB, 627x626px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 627x626px

>>8474250
>The only reason they reconstruct them into "dinosaurs" is because they had a working theory of "dinosaurs" before they discovered the fossils.
I know this is low quality b8, but have you compared early reconstructions of dinosaurs (e.g. Mantel's Iguanodon) to modern interpretations?

>>8474317

obviously amateurs arent going to find as much because professional and academically funded teams have the power to do it.

id be interested to see your sources for this stuff though.

>>8474364
How did Crocodilians survive? What kind of question is that?

They just happened to survive and we ended up with birds, we could have ended up with something else had some other species survived... doesn't really matter which one lived

What if fossils are the Material manifestations of the harrowing of the "Enlightenment"? The bestiality that man was now free to unleash on his fellow man, the abjection he was forced to internalize, the "reptilian brain". There is no reason to believe that being a conduit requires our conscious attention.

>>8474291

its not that the evidence just started popping up, its that people werent looking for evidence of birds being related to dinosaurs until someone suggested it. you will find this with many other theories of science that the writing of the papers to do with that theory will explode after an initial suggestion of it builds up.

people may not have found evidence early in history because they didnt think about dinosaurs being related to birds and they might not even have known what to look for even if they had. it takes time for methodologies and ideas to develop in fields and theres always going to be a certain circularity between theories and evidences for those theories because you need a theory first to specify what evidence you will need.

your views of science are quite one-dimensional and assumes that we come fully equipped to analyse and deal with all data and evidence before the fact when we don't. There probably was evidence for many many many things across the sciences one hundred years ago, we just werent equipped or had the ideas to study/ know about it.

>>8474411

make a thread about this and ill answer your question.

>>8474364
>Size is the only thing that matters for survival

I'm willing to accept that maybe our current knowledge of what creatures lived on this planet 65 million years ago is flawed and incomplete but come on, evidence shows that the Earth's atmosphere has changed significant since the birth of the first life forms. It was basically a different planet.

What would be the purpose of such a conspiracy? Who would benefit? How do you think an entire of field of biology was fabricated and kept going for over a century and no one spilled the beans out of self interest? Surely there would be some kind of purpose to all of this if it were true.

>>8474362
>pic
kek'd

>>8474442
there's no purpose, it's just schizophrenia and scientific illiteracy

File: Arthropods of the Burgess Shale, Canada.jpg (211KB, 735x520px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 735x520px

>>8474452
>it's just schizophrenia and scientific illiteracy
The people arguing against the existence of dinosaurs or palaeontology?

>>8474460
conspiracy theorists in general

>>8474419

W-w-why not answer it here?

File: Jawless Fish.jpg (173KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1920x1080px

>>8474464
Yeah but I'm unsure as to which side of this argument you think are the conspiracy theorists

I mean I would have thought it was obviously the side that says 'Dinosaurs didn't exist' but the existence of this thread has me questioning the validity of assuming the intelligence of posters on this board.

Did you just watch Always Sunny, OP?

>>8474229
You could just carbon date the fossils to see the age.

>>8474229

You're right, OP. It was Satan planting those bones to deceive us.

Source: I work at the Creationist Museum

Can't fool me, Devil.

File: 1472431945775.gif (2MB, 450x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x259px

>>8474229
>The nature of paleontology is that it just reacts to market demand for dinosaurs
Fucking kek

>>8474378
Mantell's early reconstructions where he literally just imagined an Iguanodon based on a handful of teeth? This is the nature of many supposed species of dinosaurs. There were fabricated on very little evidence originally, but then future fossil finds have been worked into the model due to confirmation bias.

>>8474413
My point is that why is it that all the evidence for feathered dinosaurs has just appeared in the last 20 years. You can say they "didnt know what to look for", but if feathers were as common as paleontology now suggests, they should be able to look at old specimens and see evidence of it. But that doesn't happen. All the evidence for feathered dinosaurs only exists on fossils that were found after the theory became popular. But also the finds have become more "extreme" as the theory gained ground. They used to just say that a bump on a fossil was a "quill knob", but now that the theory is mainstream they say they find pigments and protein strains and even whole fossilized feathers. Why doesnt any of that exist on older specimens?

Its also a red flag when ornithologists don't believe that the supposed transitional species are a predecessor to birds. The avian dinosaur theory is an example of paleontology going off the rails.

>>8474425
my point is that the evidence and understanding we have is so incomplete and baseless that calling the study of dinosaurs a "science" is a joke.

>>8474442
its not like pseudoscience hasn't existed before. In fact, the period when the theory of dinosaurs was developed was probably the heydey of pseudoscience. The first "Dinosaur Hunters" were in it for nothing but the wealth and fame. The vast majority of what they "discovered" has since been totally rejected as fraudulent. You have to have a critical eye of a field that had such a blatantly corrupt origin.

>>8474491
Radiometric dating

There is no carbon in fossils

>>8474229
Improper formatting, disqualified. 0/10

Did you know: 50% of the population has a sub-100 IQ?

>>8474503

where are you reading all of this from? about old specimens and ornithologists disagreeing? what are your sources?

id also say that the standard of evidence varies over different fields.

are you saying dinosaurs are non-existent?

>>8474229

Why does it matter? Even if they were'nt, theyre probably going to have been descended from an animal very closely related to dinosaurs and would probably be more related to dinosaurs than any other animal. its not going to mean shit unless youre a paleontologist, evolutionary, zoological whatever person so quit your conspiratorial bitching.

>>8474229

I bet youre exaggerating the ornithologist thing. Ornithologists arent experts on paleontology or evolution either. its not their area.

>>8474460
of all the extinct creatures in history, I wish anomalocarids still existed. They're neat

>be me
>browses /sci/
>sees post
>aye, nice controversy
>scrolls
>sees IQ mentioned frequently
>kills myself

>>8474612
Imagine that the theory of dinosaurs is in fact false. It doesn't matter to you that it has been aggressively pushed for 150 years without proof? It certainly had a lot of push back and controversy for many decades. It matters because science needs to admit when it was wrong. I happen to think this might be a case of that.

>>8474577
>>8474620
My understanding is that ornithologists arent sold on the idea that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species between dinosaur and bird. Alan Feduccia is a well known critic of the theory who has gone so far to suggest that the avian dinosaur theory will go down as paleontology's embarrassment of the century


my basis for questioning the theory of dinosaurs is general research into the field. You dont have to dig deep to find that the field has been absolutely plagued with fraud and bad science from the very start. I dont have the time or means to study morphology of bones and speculate how a dinosaur might have evolved. I'm more or less calling bullshit a lot of the supposed evidence itself. What we are told are recreations of dinosaur skeletons are closer to art than science. Many supposed species are based on wild assumptions that I simply dont agree with. Many species only have a handful of bones ever found but they speculate the rest of its structure based on what they assumed it was related to. The theory of dinosaurs seems to have been invented be people with a bias towards particular theories of evolution. You can see the holes paleontology by realizing how often they have to correct their past. Every year it seems to come out that they have to correct a total misconception about dinosaurs. Often times the source of these errors are blatant fraud or scientific laziness. It is a huge red flag to me when an entire field of study has a very questionable record going all the way back to its origins

>>8474689
The feathered dinosaur thing has always seemed odd to me. The pace at which is suddenly became scientific consensus just didnt seem right. Consider that other fields of science spend years or even decades over mundane details. But in the past decade paleontology has completely rewritten the general concept of dinosaurs to account for the fact that they were actually birds. And even questioning the idea that dinosaurs had feathers is met with an offputting hostility that you dont find elsewhere. Its almost like deep down they know it isnt proven but have some emotional attachment to it being true. At first they were saying that just small theropods had feathers, but now we have paleontologists speculating that ALL dinosaurs had feathers. It doesn't even make sense from a biological standpoint why sauropods, for example, would have feathers but you have huge portions of the field readily accepting that. The evidence that has been put forth for feathered dinosaurs simply isnt convincing to me. Things that they think point to "protofeathers" or "quill knobs" have had equally, if not more rational explanations put forth that have been utterly ignored by the paleontological community. For some reason there simply isn't a desire to debate this and they have all gone ahead and re-imagined the entire theory of dinosaurs to account for this very flimsy evidence and have acted totally dogmatic in pushing the feathered dinosaur meme. If they all so readily adopted this hardly proven theory as absolute fact, then maybe we should be questioning if the field as a whole even has much integrity.

>>8474317
Hold the fuck up. Peter Larson, the dude who owns the Black Hills Institute (commercial fossil hunting group) is a friend of mine. The original bone found were knuclke bones eroding out of the side of the mountain. Keep in mind that at the time, BHI was a small museum that had a dozen people working there at the time. I've never heard ANY source state that Maurice Williams (the land owner) never saw the bones out on a ride, and even if he did, the toes bones would look like small black rocks to an untrained person. After excavation Williams through a fit about how his compensation wasn't enough so the feds raided the BHI, seized Sue and through Larson in prison. Williams then sold the skeleton for $8 million to Chicago Field Museum.

>>8474364
Archeopteryx lived 150 mya, dumbfuck. by the end of the Cretaceous, 65 mya, birds had fully proliferated and diversified. The determining factror for a terrestrial animal to survive the K-T extinction was burrowing, which allowed it to hide from the heat waves and eat underground insects and foliage.

>>8474291
Nope. the first archeopteryx fossil was found in 1861. It wasn't widely accepted that dinosaurs were the ancestors to birds until the 1970's.

>>8474747
im talking about the fossils that allegedly have evidence of feathers. I dont think archeopteryx fossils have been said to show feathers but they are supposed to show a transitional skeleton.

There are about 40 specimens that supposedly point to feathers. The first was found in 1987 and about 2/3 of them has been found in the last decade. Paleontologists are now telling us that feathers were common and maybe on all dinosaurs. Why is it that none of the old specimens have this supposed proof of feathers (which I argue is far from proof)? Has anyone even bothered to look? Dinosaur hunters have a bad habit of seeing what they want to see

>>8474780
correction. It looks like the specimens of archeopteryx that allegedly show feathers have been under scrutiny since the 1980s. Yet another forgery in paleontology.

>>8474790
post source. "Under scrutiny" =/= proven false. It means one dude out of hundreds of professionals has doubts.

i think alot of people will have the gut reaction saying youre wrong. but then again i think most people wont have the background to even debate this issue, including me.

I wonder though if your fraudulant claim is big enough to generalize throughout the whole of paleontology.

i do think the thing about scientists changing their minds isn't necessarily a big deal but a general part of (more specifically) historical sciences and fields. Its far more difficult for them to gather evidence and so they often have relatively low standards of evidence for claims.

You can even compare it to ancient history which has relatively smaller standards of evidence than modern history (i guess they might deal with different issues though).

you would be quite surprised at some of the evidence used to justify jesus' existence.

>>8474780
Almost all feathered dinosaurs are found in China. Only lagerstattens, which are formations formed by volcanic ash , have the ability to preserve feathers. China is home to most of the world's known lagerstattens. Until the late 80's China discouraged frivolous scientific pursuits. Now, both Chinese and American scientists find feathered dinosaur fossils.

>>8474229
Dude give me a fucking break. Just came from a flat earther thread on /pol/. Fucking retards they are. Daily reminder that /pol/ went back to normal /pol/ after the elections.

>>8474833
How convenient that only China can produce feathers. China has been the biggest source of fossil forgeries in recent years. China is also the home of the factories that make the vast majority of the fossil casts for museums, universities and collectors around the world.

The Chinese always dupe American consumers at every given chance.

>>8474885
Chinese AND Americans work together. Every significant fossil is heavily scrutinized by professionals. Again China is the only place with most of the world's known lagerstattens which preserve feathers. Fakes have been called in the past, adding to the legitmacy of the one's known to be real.

>>8474824
this is pretty much how I feel. I'm honestly not sure. I'm also not well versed in paelontology that I could argue about specific bone morphology, etc. But Ive always been somewhat of a dinosaur enthusiast. When the feather stuff started getting heavily pushed is when I remember starting to feel that something was off. I feel like I have a good bullshit detector and the feathered dinosaur meme just didn't seem "right". In the last couple days I stumbled onto the topic and Im now convinced that there is at least something fishy going on with the field. Im not 100% saying that dinosaurs did not exist, but I am now pretty certain that the most of what they say is extrapolated so extremely from such few data points that it shouldnt be regarded as a science and more like a folk tale about earth.

I think what happened is some early hoaxes merged with new scientific theories that people didn't quite grasp yet to create the dinosaur meme. Its a pseudoscience at its core assumptions but has managed to build an entire methodology on top of it that technically follows the scientific process, making it appear very convincing.

I think the way it got such a strong foothold is because the dawn of the dinosaur era coincided with Darwin and Marx. It was an explanation of the world that people adopted as they started to reject Christianity. Assuming that I'm right about the field being a sham, it will be very interesting to watch the evolution vs religion debate reignite except that science will be on the defensive this time.

File: dhingdhong-300x222.jpg (20KB, 300x222px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x222px

>>8474885
I suppose you think Dr. Dhing Dhong is behind this, don't you?

File: smug Gabe.jpg (8KB, 244x244px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 244x244px

>>8474503
>theory first becoming popular coincides with earliest appearance of evidence supporting the theory
>must be a conspiracy!
now I want you to think long and hard about what you've done and how you got to where you are today.

>>8474229
>the theory of dinosaurs
L0Lno fgt pls

Found OP's source of information

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/09/dinosaur-hoax-dinosaurs-never-existed.html?m=1

Disclaimer: I really don't care about Evolution or the age of the Material Earth.

It's curious that all known fossils have been found in the last couple of centuries. People have always been digging, mining, plowing. You'd think something found before the very late 18th century would've survived, a tooth, a shell, anything. Even written reports of supposed fossils before that time are very rare.

Geology student here, he's not wrong but that's because he's misunderstanding the word 'theory'.

The core of all science is philosophy. We hold assumptions in all branches of science. Geology is no different. I will tell you some of the foundational assumptions of geology. If you accept them then you accept that dinosaurs are real. If you reject them, it's as you wish but then you live in a world of fairies and unicorns. That's not a terrible thing but I have nothing further to say.

First off I am Christian, so I'm not making fun of you in any way.

We assume that the world we view today is like how the world has always been. All science holds this assumption. The law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, and so on. If we conduct an experiment today it's valid for all time. The past is like the present. We cannot prove it. It's an assumption.

We assume the universe holds these laws everywhere. All science holds this assumption. Conducting an experiment on Earth will have the same results as conducting an experiment under the same conditions in the Andromeda Galaxy or anywhere else in the universe. The laws of physics are constant throughout the universe. We cannot prove it. It's an assumption.

Specific to Geology:

The law of Superposition. Older layers were deposited before newer layers. The further down you go, the further back in time you go, so long as rock layers remain undeformed (like with a reverse fault pushing older rock up under newer rock). This assumption relies on the earlier assumption that physical laws are constant.

The law of original horizontality. All sedimentary rock is deposited horizontally at first. Sediment does not deposit itself vertically on cliff walls for instance. If it is vertical now it's been deformed that way AFTER deposition.

The law of cross-cutting relationships. Newer features (such as the earlier mentioned reverse fault pushing older rock up under newer rock) happen after the features are in place. For example it is assumed that a fault cannot break rock that hasn't formed yet.

If you accept those assumptions both of science and of stratigraphy then you accept that dinosaurs are creatures which lived some 250-65 million years ago. You likewise accept that the Earth is between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old. I must go to class but this thread is interesting, so I may come back after to check on it.

>>8475747

That IS pretty damning though.

>>8475925

theres perfectly respectable reasons why most fossils have been found recently. its not as simple as just digging. and quite frankly, more than 200 years ago, im pretty sure most people would not give a shit about fossils.

>>8475953

lol a man whos showed some good knowledge of his field yet still fails to make any of it relevant to the thread, and id even go as far as saying he misunderstands what OP is saying. Hes not saying dinosaurs dont exist, hes debating whether they evolved into birds and thats got little to do specifically with anything youve said.

>>8475747

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/10/evolution-is-lie-intelligent-design-is.html

Actually, this is pretty good.

>I only presented forgeries as empirical evidence because so did everyone else!

>>8475976
right. Im not outright dismissing the idea of dinosaurs. There is in fact a theoretical case for it. But I do believe that the vast majority of what we accept as "fact" about dinosaurs" is mostly baseless. When looking into the field of paleontology I get the feeling that there is an extreme bias built on the presupposition of dinosaurs. This has lead paleontologists to make absurd assumptions and accept weak evidence as scientific fact. The bird meme is just the best recent example of a theory getting popular, then the evidence that "confirms" it appears mostly after. I.e. the paleontologists see in the evidence what they want to see. Alternate explanations for fossils that supposedly imply feathers have been offered, but has fallen on deaf ears in the paleontology community. Also the history of paleontology is so plagued with fraud that most supposed discoveries should require extensive independent study to verify the authenticity of fossils, but most paleontologists seem content with only ever seeing molds as long as those molds fit in with their prefabricated assumptions.

>>8475973
Man has always made stories about the natural world. Why wouldn't people care about finding the skeleton of a monster 1000 years ago? There world was infinitely more simple than ours, so something like that would really make their imaginations go wild

>>8476012
ill give this a read later. People have a bad habit of outright ignoring any criticisms of science that come from any sort of religious bend or alternative narrative

>>8474364
> Inb4 ohmygod he makes a valid point. He must be /pol/

sucks living with a persecution complex

>>8475976
Geology student again.

No. This is a package deal. I'm not going to go into all the details but if you accept those assumptions than you accept that dinosaurs evolved into birds, evolution is a thing, paleontology is real, and ect.

You don't get to accept those assumptions then pick and choose how to apply them.

Get the fuck back to /pol/ with your conspiracy nonsense please.

>OP brings up logical evidence that challenges current scientific theories
>Brainlets and Reddit stormfag the place up with "I saw a dinosaur at a museum once!"
I fear for the future of our scientific community.

File: Histology dinosaur.jpg (45KB, 480x476px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x476px

>>8475747
that's some good shit
>No tribes, cultures or countries in the world ever discovered a dinosaur bone before the mid-1800s
except that the Chinese have been digging up theropod fossils ("dragons' teeth") for use in medicine since antiquity.
I actually owned a copy of that "make your own dinosaur out of chicken bones" book when I was little, though. Collected the skeletons of a few chickens, let them sit around smelling creepy, never got past the first steps of construction though.

>>8475953
>The law of original horizontality.
CLINOFORMS

>>8474229
I was skeptical, but I've gotta say there is some sketchy stuff going on, if these arguments are true

File: Early_birds_dinosaurs.jpg (99KB, 676x693px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 676x693px

>>8476981
>atlantean conspiracy
>logical evidence
I fear for the future of laypeople.

>>8477706

>the value of information is dictated by its source

This is what STEMlords believe.

>>8477670
1. OP hasn't got arguments. Literally none.
2. You're also OP.

>>8477741
well yeah I trust anime more than CNN more than you

File: spider_paleontology.png (65KB, 605x569px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 605x569px

Too bad it doesn't work like this
It'd be at least interesting to think about

File: Huhdrill.jpg (206KB, 374x440px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 374x440px

>>8477741
Aww, look. Babby's first insult.

File: image.png (7KB, 470x454px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 470x454px

>>8477746
Read this entire link and ignore the parts about how if dinos existed they'd be in the bible.
>>8475747
If true, some of that is pretty compelling.

>>8474229
Certainly in most colouring and maybe certain external specifics, we don't really know the truth. No one claims the living renditions of dinosaurs are 100% factual, they claim the opposite actually. Much of what we think we know is likely false or incomplete too, not just in this, but that's the point of science. Everything is basically an assumption based on incomplete evidence, the point is to find more evidence and further refine those assumptions, coupled with a bit of creativity and rigor. Much of what we hold core to many science disciplines will likely be replaced in the next few hundred years, if not replaced, then extremely refined.