Do Dinosaurs really existed?

[Blimey]

All these talks about dinosaurs.. got me thinking.. what if dinosaurs never really existed.. what if all these discoveries and theories were in fact man-made.. we all know that the discovery of dinosaur fossil started in the in the 1800s..( even though parts of dinosaur bones were reportedly found in the 1600s ).. but the truly dinosaur bone rush started in the 1800s.. right after the same era Darwin published "The Origin of Species".. was that a coincidence?.. were the people influenced by the Darwin's book..and then go search for it?..and suddenly found many dinosaur bones?.. We probably never know what did happened..

Is it possible that all the discoveries were planted?.. Is it possible that all these dinosaur story were really a hoax.. because people need something other than the fact that we are truly Adam's descendant.. and by embracing the evolution theory we are relieved from the burden that we are God's creation.. and thus we have to be obedient to Him.. What if the dinosaur were really something to bring down the religious dogma..

It's only a thought though.. just a "what if" theory I have.. love to hear your opinions though.. cheers..

Grimz

*ps: http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaurs.htm (read this article..might change ur mind a bit (or not)

Edited July 10, 2007 by DaGrimz

[GreyWeather]

So... What you mean to say is, people made giant bones >> dug a large hole/pushed them into cliff faces with only a small area showing >> covered them up so perfectly you can count the sediment layers?

...Slightly more beleivable than "the devil put them there" and that's not saying much.

Dinosaur fossils have been found all over the world (places undiscovered during the 1800's) Native Americans have folklores about giant thunder birds bones, the Chinese have their dragon bones. We also use fossils to fuel our cars - you don't have tree's and plant life if you don't have creatures to eat them/pollenate them/ spead their seeds ectect.

[jowell]

No they existed, its a fact, their bones are in museums all over the world, you can see them yourself if you like. Not to mention evolution makes sense, the only reason it is still a theory, is that it cannot be tested, for obvios reasons.

[Blimey]

aah..but what about the facts that dinosaur bones were never discovered by common people?.. unlike other archeologist found.. like the dead sea scroll.. have you ever heard dinosaur bones discovered by a child?..or a builder?

you can't brought up folklore in a science arguments.. folklore was based on cultural beliefs, religious as well as mythic elements..not scientifical facts.. believe me I have heard many folklore coming from all over the world.. for example.. in Indonesia there's a folklore that a green giant called Butoijo.. come every full moon to eat crops and herds.. and every once in a while a child.. In mexico (or Peru) scientist discovered UFOs in the Maya-Aztec Temple reliefs.. not to mention Ogres and Trolls from Britain.. are you saying that all that was real?..

and speaking of evolution..how come only few dinosaurs evolved but keep their form today?.. aside from komodo-dragon.. how come the physical condition were perfectly fitted millions of years ago..( and they keep it for another millions of years ).. but suddenly they evolved into a completely different form?..ie; birds.. and not just one species of dinosaur, but all of them.. all that roam on earth that is.. what made them change their form so extremely?.. global weather extreme changes?.. meteorite collision with earth?.. well they were doing fine for millions of years..and i bet in a million years the weather did changed a lot..

okay let's say that a meteor really did crashed down and changed the global weather conditions.. let's say that the sun can't get through the clouds of dust for thousands of years.. and an extreme winter were upon the earth.. what about the dinosaur that already live in the cold climate such as the north end.. what happenned to them?.. changed into a bird also?..

and finally..about museums.. really.. if something is displayed in the museum does it really mean it's real?.. have you ever heard the piltdown man case?.. the skull of the "missing link" was found by charles dawson..staged in the infamous London Natural History Museum and received many praise..even called the discovery of the century..then they found out that the skull were fabricated using orangutan jaw, human scalp and many other to form the great "missing link"..

museum is a business.. a multi-billion-dollars business.. just like any other business in the world.. the thing is.. they're running out of "materials" to sell..

just a thought.. no offense..

Edited July 11, 2007 by Blimey

[Luka the Rentboy]

aah..but what about the facts that dinosaur bones were never discovered by common people?.. unlike other archeologist found.. like the dead sea scroll.. have you ever heard dinosaur bones discovered by a child?..

What... Plenty of dinosaur bones have been found by "common people". It's just that at the time it wasn't always known to be dinosaur bones.

museum is a business.. a multi-billion-dollars business.. just like any other business in the world.. the thing is.. they're running out of "materials" to sell..

But museums aren't relying soley on dinosaur bones... Plenty of museums don't have any dinosaur bones.

[eyesaurSy]

aah..but what about the facts that dinosaur bones were never discovered by common people?.. unlike other archeologist found.. like the dead sea scroll.. have you ever heard dinosaur bones discovered by a child?..or a builder?

Even today, more than half of dinosaur fossils are found by accident, often by children, hikers, or construction workers.

[speshall mareens]

saying they never exixted, is jsut a crackheaded theory for wich the route that your train of thought took is byond me, and i am know for mine takin WAY to many detours

they exixted and theres way to much proof aianst your theory and NON supportinf yours. sorry, your completly and utterly WRONG

[Archosaur]

aah..but what about the facts that dinosaur bones were never discovered by common people?.. unlike other archeologist found.. like the dead sea scroll.. have you ever heard dinosaur bones discovered by a child?..or a builder?

you can't brought up folklore in a science arguments.. folklore was based on cultural beliefs, religious as well as mythic elements..not scientifical facts.. believe me I have heard many folklore coming from all over the world.. for example.. in Indonesia there's a folklore that a green giant called Butoijo.. come every full moon to eat crops and herds.. and every once in a while a child.. In mexico (or Peru) scientist discovered UFOs in the Maya-Aztec Temple reliefs.. not to mention Ogres and Trolls from Britain.. are you saying that all that was real?..

and speaking of evolution..how come only few dinosaurs evolved but keep their form today?.. aside from komodo-dragon.. how come the physical condition were perfectly fitted millions of years ago..( and they keep it for another millions of years ).. but suddenly they evolved into a completely different form?..ie; birds.. and not just one species of dinosaur, but all of them.. all that roam on earth that is.. what made them change their form so extremely?.. global weather extreme changes?.. meteorite collision with earth?.. well they were doing fine for millions of years..and i bet in a million years the weather did changed a lot..

okay let's say that a meteor really did crashed down and changed the global weather conditions.. let's say that the sun can't get through the clouds of dust for thousands of years.. and an extreme winter were upon the earth.. what about the dinosaur that already live in the cold climate such as the north end.. what happenned to them?.. changed into a bird also?..

and finally..about museums.. really.. if something is displayed in the museum does it really mean it's real?.. have you ever heard the piltdown man case?.. the skull of the "missing link" was found by charles dawson..staged in the infamous London Natural History Museum and received many praise..even called the discovery of the century..then they found out that the skull were fabricated using orangutan jaw, human scalp and many other to form the great "missing link"..

museum is a business.. a multi-billion-dollars business.. just like any other business in the world.. the thing is.. they're running out of "materials" to sell..

just a thought.. no offense..

Blimey, I'm afraid you are mistaken. Many dinosaur fossils have, in fact, been discovered by lay people. What discoveries would have been attributed to creatures of legend are now able to be categorized scientifically.

As for catastrophic climate change we are not talking about the weather "changing a bit". The meteor impact created a disaster of truly Apocalyptic proportions. Flaming chunks of asteroid and acid rain would pour down, mile high tidal waves, and a cloud of darkness that extinguished the Sun for at least three years. If such were to happen today, it is likely that only one or two vertebrate forms would survive extinction (and any that could would have to evolve rapidly).

The "Piltdown Man" was a deliberate hoax perpetrated by an anti-evolutionist to discredit the entire theory of evolution. This is scarcely an example of museums trying to pull one over on anyone.

[War-Junkie]

Blimey you just got owned.

[Blimey]

hahaha..maybe i just got owned.. but then again like i said it's just a thought..a possibility.. of something that we didn't know for sure.. are we that arrogant to ignore the facts that we could be wrong all this time?.. there is no wrong or right when it comes to thoughts.. up to 400 years ago all the people in the world believed that the earth was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe.. despite galileo's campaign..

discoveries made by common people..are often unrecorded and unfiled..and come from word of mouth..so unless you can give me proof..well let say, otherwise using war junkie's word.. I am owned.. haha..

about the museum thing.. I'm not saying all museum were like that.. I'm speaking in the context of dinosaurs so I assumed you get the idea that the museums I'm talking about were the museum that displayed dinosaur bones.. the piltdown man case were the exactly the point.. the example that the museum displayed a hoax (eventhough i don't blame them since the piltdown man was approved by the british top scientist as original).. and how come it was made to discredit the evolution theory?.. wasn't it perpetrated to support the evolution theory since it completed the whole ape-to-human evolution?..(which by the way still missing a link)..

and the meteor theory..you are absolutely right..if it happened right now..no living thing except one or two survived.. soo..where the hell did our kind came from?.. weren't the shark was the only species that hasn't changed is millions of years, but how did they survive? surely if that really happened the ocean were affected too.. and where did the birds came from if all the dinosaur extinct?, yet birds were said to be the direct descendant of dinosaurs..

did anyone read the link i posted at the start?..really..you should.. once again..it's a theory guys..a "what if"..so don't go crazy and curse the hell out of me for being critical.. hehe..

cheeerrsss..

Edited July 11, 2007 by Blimey

[Roj47]

aah..but what about the facts that dinosaur bones were never discovered by common people?.. unlike other archeologist found.. like the dead sea scroll.. have you ever heard dinosaur bones discovered by a child?..or a builder?

Wonder why you make no effort to check things out? Laziness?

BEIJING - Villagers in central China spent decades digging up bones they believed belonged to flying dragons and using them in traditional medicines. Turns out the bones belonged to dinosaurs, and now scientists are doing the digging.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_...nosaur_medicine

Tumbler Ridge became a site of palaeontological interest when two boys, Mark Turner and Daniel Helm, discovered a trackway of an armored dinosaur (ankylosaur) on the bank of Flatbed Creek a short distance away from their hometown (Helm, 2001, 2002; Kelsey, 2003; McCrea, 2003; Shilts, 2001). This discovery sparked a general enthusiasm in palaeontology in many of the residents of Tumbler Ridge who began to systematically explore the river valleys, canyons and creek beds in the area. Several new and significant finds were made, primarily of fossil vertebrate tracks and tracksites. The fossil track finds were confirmed and studied by University of Alberta Ph.D. candidate Rich McCrea, a student who specializes in the study of fossil footprints.

http://www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/prnr/din...av/tumbler.html

BOZEMAN, Montana (CNN) -- From the time he was a kid digging holes in his backyard, paleontologist John "Jack" Horner knew what he wanted to be when he grew up.

"I found my first dinosaur bone when I was 6, growing up in Montana. Ever since then I've been interested in dinosaurs," Horner wrote in his 1993 book "The Complete T-Rex."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/25...file/index.html

Do I need to continue?

[Roj47]

and the meteor theory..you are absolutely right..if it happened right now..no living thing except one or two survived.. soo..where the hell did our kind came from?.. weren't the shark was the only species that hasn't changed is millions of years, but how did they survive? surely if that really happened the ocean were affected too.. and where did the birds came from if all the dinosaur extinct?, yet birds were said to be the direct descendant of dinosaurs..

Dinosaur extinction theories have been widely speculated over the years and have evolved as new evidence is discovered. Theories differ from some that explain the cause of extinction for all dinosaurs; while others appear to only account for some. These theories include drastic changes in the earth’s climate due to several causes; a world-wide physiological epidemic, some incredible cataclysm or catastrophe, changes in vegetation, an asteroid from outer space striking the earth, and even the Biblical flood (with little standing room in Noah’s Ark for dinosaurs!) among others. The ultimate cause may have been one of these theories or a combination of several.

http://www.calvinwlew.com/issuepapers/dino...iontheories.htm

Just a cut and paste. Not really read.... I suggest you read on the internet rather than come here to just pick fights

[Shaftsbury]

All these talks about dinosaurs.. got me thinking.. what if dinosaurs never really existed.. what if all these discoveries and theories were in fact man-made.. we all know that the discovery of dinosaur fossil started in the in the 1800s..( even though parts of dinosaur bones were reportedly found in the 1600s ).. but the truly dinosaur bone rush started in the 1800s.. right after the same era Darwin published "The Origin of Species".. was that a coincidence?.. were the people influenced by the Darwin's book..and then go search for it?..and suddenly found many dinosaur bones?.. We probably never know what did happened..

Is it possible that all the discoveries were planted?.. Is it possible that all these dinosaur story were really a hoax.. because people need something other than the fact that we are truly Adam's descendant.. and by embracing the evolution theory we are relieved from the burden that we are God's creation.. and thus we have to be obedient to Him.. What if the dinosaur were really something to bring down the religious dogma..

It's only a thought though.. just a "what if" theory I have.. love to hear your opinions though.. cheers..

Grimz

*ps: http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaurs.htm (read this article..might change ur mind a bit (or not)

It's an interesting read, a lot of speculation on his part, and he has quite a few errors in it which I will address individually.

"The class Dinosauria was originally defined by Sir Richard Owen in 1842, in a two hour speech that reportedly held the audience captivated. The original dinosaurs of this new group were Megalosaurus, Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus. However, each of these animals was known only from fragmentary specimens. It wasn't until the discoveries of dinosaurs in North America in the mid-19th century that people began to get a clearer picture of what dinosaurs looked like."

"Megalosaurus: the first dinosaur

The first described dinosaur from anywhere in the world, was found in Oxfordshire. It was a 9 metre long carnivore that stood on its hind legs; now called Megalosaurus bucklandi, or 'Buckland's giant-lizard'.

When Buckland collected the bones that are now on display, he was unsure of their significance. When the great French comparative anatomist Georges Cuvier visited Oxford, he realised that the Stonesfield bones belonged to a giant animal resembling a lizard. Following Cuvier's visit, Buckland started describing the fossils in earnest, and he published an account of them in 1824."

Source: http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/learning/htmls/mcourt.htm

It is clear that they had a pretty good idea what they looked like, before the american discoveries.

"It is generally accepted that the first discovery of dinosaur remains in North America was made in 1854 by Ferdinand Vandiveer Hayden during his exploration of the upper Missouri River."

"Near the confluence of the Judith and Missouri Rivers (shown above) Hayden's party recovered a small collection of isolated teeth which were later described by the Philadelphia paleontologist Joseph Leidy in 1856, in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia."

So, dinosaurs were described in 1842 before the discoveries in 1854 that were required to give a clear picture of what dinosaurs looked like! Were discoveries made or constructed to fit the descriptions?

Nope, like I said before the first published description of a dinosaur was in 1824, the term "Dinosauria" wasn't used until 1842, and besides the first discovery in North America was of scattered teeth from 3 different dinosaurs how is that supposed to "give a clear picture" ?

Source: http://www.dinohunters.com/Hunters/Hayden/Hayden.htm

"These two men started as friends but became bitter rivals in a feud of legendary proportions. The stories surrounding these two include tales of armed field parties, spies, and intercepting shipments of fossils intended for the other." (Bold and italics are mine throughout this article.)

Why were fossils being shipped to the discoverers and from whom?

"Cope and Marsh started out as friends, meeting in Europe and hunting fossils together in the eastern United States. But when he visited one of Cope's digs in New Jersey, Marsh covertly paid Cope's crew to send future finds to him (Marsh)."

Source: http://www.strangescience.net/cope.htm

They were sending fossils from the quarries what's so unusual about that?

Why were there no discoveries by native Americans in all the years previous when they roamed the American continents? There is no belief of dinosaurs in the native American religion or tradition.

For that matter, why were there no discoveries prior to the nineteenth century in any part of the world? According to the World Book Encyclopedia, "before the 1800's, no one ever knew that dinosaurs ever existed". "During the late 1800's and early 1900's, large deposits of dinosaur remains were discovered in western North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa." "Dinosaur deposits also lie in Belgium, Mongolia, Tanzania, West Germany, and many other parts of the world."

Why has man suddenly made all these discoveries? Belgium, Mongolia, Tanzania, West Germany (and the Americas as well) were inhabited and very well explored for thousands of years and there were no discoveries until the nineteenth century. Why?

"A History of Mesa County Dinosaurs

by Harley Armstrong

The first peoples in Mesa County to notice and collect fossils were the various aboriginal inhabitants. Native Indians manufactured some of their chipped stone tools from agatized dinosaur and mammal bone, and agatized wood. Trade beads containing segments of fossils were worn for adornment."

Source: http://www.dinosaurjourney.org/Westerncolorado.htm

"Dragons (Chinese: long) are a potent and prominent symbol in Chinese culture. The origin of the dragon image is unknown because it is so ancient. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that some of the massive fossilized bones encountered in several parts of China, including dinosaur and mammoth bones, were thought by ancient people to be those of huge dragons.

Dragon bones (longgu) and dragon teeth (longchi) were recorded in the Shennong Bencao Jing (ca. 100 A.D.) and were especially valued for their treatment of spirit disorders (1):"

Source: http://www.itmonline.org/arts/dragonbone.htm

There are other indications that ancient people knew about dinosaur fossils, but they really didn't know what they were from.

"The First Real Proof of Dinosaur Existence"

"Eight years after this reference book was published the first comprehensive skeletal form of a real dinosaur--Hadrosaurus foulkii --was unearthed in Haddonfield, New Jersey. Taller than a house, it had the pelvic structure of a bird, the tail of a lizard and, incredibly, it walked upright on two legs, foraging with arm-like forelimbs."

Were the bones of a bird and lizard and other animals used in the discovery?

Hmmm ya how many "house sized" birds or lizards do you know of that could have been used in the forgery? D'oh

If you notice everything I have found wrong with this article appears in the first 1/3 of the page. I'll spare you an extra long post and stop here.

[speshall mareens]

The "Piltdown Man" was a deliberate hoax perpetrated by an anti-evolutionist to discredit the entire theory of evolution. This is scarcely an example of museums trying to pull one over on anyone.

the piltdown man was yes a hoax, but tis was brittian being jelaous that they had no caveman and thinking they were supiour, so an amature archeologist created the skull and other assorted bones to make it look like a "missinglink" hat supposedly made brittian the cradle for all mankind. it was a hoax that i the end failed miserably

[keithisco]

the piltdown man was yes a hoax, but tis was brittian being jelaous that they had no caveman and thinking they were supiour, so an amature archeologist created the skull and other assorted bones to make it look like a "missinglink" hat supposedly made brittian the cradle for all mankind. it was a hoax that i the end failed miserably

Your theory about people wanting Britain to be the cradle for all mankind is well "out there".... why would Britain be "jealous" at not having a caveman? We have plenty of credible sites of early man living in caves ( Wookey Hole, Cheddar Caves etc)... sounds more like an anti - British argument than scientific.

Blimey... do you know another poster called Adama?

Edited July 11, 2007 by keithisco

[Shaftsbury]

I'm not so sure his theory is that far out there, suppose that rather than being jealous about not having any fossils of that age, they were attempting to take away the "cradle of mankind" from Africa?

The "Out of Africa" theory was prevailing at this time, this may be a bit controversal, but is it not possible there were racial undertones involved in the hoax?

[speshall mareens]

oh yes, definitly. there views were that the ntives of africa were subhuman (u heard of that whole slavery shtik righ?) so the idea of humans coming from a place where the poepl were subhuman was unheard of and unspkeakable.

[Blimey]

Not really read.... I suggest you read on the internet rather than come here to just pick fights

aahh there you go people..i knew this would come up.. why does everytime a man brings up a theory or a thought that somewhat radical or different than other's thinking, he always get scolded?..well that's the basic of human psychology i guess..to be affraid or rather building a defense to keep something "new" out of his way or life..you can say people rather go for the security of knowing that what he known all this time was correct ad therefore needs no revisions.. I thought people nowadays were open to some thinking or theory (this is hardly a theory though).. i guess i was wrong.. i thought it would be exciting to brought up this subject..just an out of the box thinking..

i'm not here to pick a fight mate.. i'm here to get some insights and knowledge.. and this is what educated man do.. i bet you search the internet for those proof.. it gave you more knowledge right?..

like i said a few times before..don't get mad at me.. this is just a "what if" theory.. hahaha boy..do i got "owned" this time.. and plus a few "nice" comments too..hahaha..

anyway..i'll post a reply soon.. for those of you who "owned" me..wait for my sweet revenge..hahahahaha..

cheers mate.. keep ur mind open..and your eyes closed..that way you might be able to think out of the box..

[Luka the Rentboy]

aahh there you go people..i knew this would come up.. why does everytime a man brings up a theory or a thought that somewhat radical or different than other's thinking, he always get scolded?..well that's the basic of human psychology i guess..to be affraid or rather building a defense to keep something "new" out of his way or life..you can say people rather go for the security of knowing that what he known all this time was correct ad therefore needs no revisions.. I thought people nowadays were open to some thinking or theory (this is hardly a theory though).. i guess i was wrong.. i thought it would be exciting to brought up this subject..just an out of the box thinking..

i'm not here to pick a fight mate.. i'm here to get some insights and knowledge.. and this is what educated man do.. i bet you search the internet for those proof.. it gave you more knowledge right?..

like i said a few times before..don't get mad at me.. this is just a "what if" theory.. hahaha boy..do i got "owned" this time.. and plus a few "nice" comments too..hahaha..

anyway..i'll post a reply soon.. for those of you who "owned" me..wait for my sweet revenge..hahahahaha..

cheers mate.. keep ur mind open..and your eyes closed..that way you might be able to think out of the box..

This isn't about "new theories". It's just that it seems as if you have gotten this "open-mind" thing kind of wrong. Your ideas are not just "radical" and "different", (such ideas are nothing new though) there's nothing that support your ideas. It's just preposterous. Not just "far-out", but just ignorant and inept. You have to ignore obvious things to accept your theory. You might want to try theorising in a state not affected by severely mind-altering substances.

If your theory is sound and built upon any evidence or suggestions it might be considered, despite being radical and new.

But what you've done here is simply to display abstract thought; dinosaurs are accepted therefore they don't exist. We don't live because we think we live. We are dead and buried six feet under, because we think we are walking and alive.

The solar rays they actually radiate from the earth, not the sun. The sun is actually a magnetic vaccum cleaner that draws too it energy and light, because we think it is the other way around.

But that doesn't make it worth considering lest there be something more suggesting that is the actual order of things.

[speshall mareens]

its human nature and more american nature toahte somehting thats different and not mainstreem. and trust me, americans are THE WORST at that.

PS you look REALLY goth in that pic nena. i mean REALLY.

[Pax Unum]

Since I’ve found fossils ‘in the stone’, and had to physically remove them from the rock as part of collection, I’m certain the ‘what if they were put there’ idea is ridiculous... IMO

[Harte]

Your theory about people wanting Britain to be the cradle for all mankind is well "out there".... why would Britain be "jealous" at not having a caveman? We have plenty of credible sites of early man living in caves ( Wookey Hole, Cheddar Caves etc)... sounds more like an anti - British argument than scientific.

Blimey... do you know another poster called Adama?

Blimey is almost completely wrong in every sentence, but he's almost right about Piltdown, unless I misremember.

For us, it's easy to look back and say it was about trying to say that modern man couldn't have come from some "subhuman" species which is basically how the natives of Africa were considered at that time. But, again unless I misremember, at that time, the prevailing thought was not that Africa was the cradle of humanity. That came later, once early fossils were found there. I believe that Java Man preceded Piltdown. And unless I'm wrong, Java was the first Homo Erectus found and identified as early human.

No, the Europeans needed early humans to have arisen in Europe so that they could maintain their mindset that they were superior, and that is because to their way of thinking, where ever early Man had been the earliest, why then that was the place that Man had had the most time to become more and more civilized. If the earliest man could be tied to Europe, the way they saw it that would prove that Europeans were the most advanced. Not that they needed any proof, they had already pretty much accepted this idea as fact. It's just that Piltdown fit so well into this mindset that the hoaxer figured even if he had to hoax it, eventually the idea would prove to be true, even if the fossil didn't. And that's why it was so quickly accepted as well. That and the reputation that the hoaxer enjoyed prior to perpetrating the hoax.

Again, unless I misremember. I'm not researching this as I have only a couple more minutes online.

Harte

Edited July 11, 2007 by Harte

[questionmark]

All these talks about dinosaurs.. got me thinking.. what if dinosaurs never really existed.. what if all these discoveries and theories were in fact man-made.. we all know that the discovery of dinosaur fossil started in the in the 1800s..( even though parts of dinosaur bones were reportedly found in the 1600s ).. but the truly dinosaur bone rush started in the 1800s.. right after the same era Darwin published "The Origin of Species".. was that a coincidence?.. were the people influenced by the Darwin's book..and then go search for it?..and suddenly found many dinosaur bones?.. We probably never know what did happened..

Sorry to correct you, but dinos were found way before the 1600. Dino bones even helped to creatre some popular legends in ancient Greece (Giants and Titans for example).

Now, coming back to the "planting" theory ... who and why would go through the work of first creating artificial bones and then burying them under tons of rubble in such quantities that it would make the whole thing convincing ?

ED: Typo

Edited July 12, 2007 by questionmark

[speshall mareens]

Blimey is almost completely wrong in every sentence, but he's almost right about Piltdown, unless I misremember.

For us, it's easy to look back and say it was about trying to say that modern man couldn't have come from some "subhuman" species which is basically how the natives of Africa were considered at that time. But, again unless I misremember, at that time, the prevailing thought was not that Africa was the cradle of humanity. That came later, once early fossils were found there. I believe that Java Man preceded Piltdown. And unless I'm wrong, Java was the first Homo Erectus found and identified as early human.

No, the Europeans needed early humans to have arisen in Europe so that they could maintain their mindset that they were superior, and that is because to their way of thinking, where ever early Man had been the earliest, why then that was the place that Man had had the most time to become more and more civilized. If the earliest man could be tied to Europe, the way they saw it that would prove that Europeans were the most advanced. Not that they needed any proof, they had already pretty much accepted this idea as fact. It's just that Piltdown fit so well into this mindset that the hoaxer figured even if he had to hoax it, eventually the idea would prove to be true, even if the fossil didn't. And that's why it was so quickly accepted as well. That and the reputation that the hoaxer enjoyed prior to perpetrating the hoax.

Again, unless I misremember. I'm not researching this as I have only a couple more minutes online.

Harte

thats what i just said. no you got it right, but brittian was jealous becaues at the time, there was no evidence of ealy man.

[Deinychus_rulz]

aah..but what about the facts that dinosaur bones were never discovered by common people?.. unlike other archeologist found.. like the dead sea scroll.. have you ever heard dinosaur bones discovered by a child?..or a builder?

you can't brought up folklore in a science arguments.. folklore was based on cultural beliefs, religious as well as mythic elements..not scientifical facts.. believe me I have heard many folklore coming from all over the world.. for example.. in Indonesia there's a folklore that a green giant called Butoijo.. come every full moon to eat crops and herds.. and every once in a while a child.. In mexico (or Peru) scientist discovered UFOs in the Maya-Aztec Temple reliefs.. not to mention Ogres and Trolls from Britain.. are you saying that all that was real?..

and speaking of evolution..how come only few dinosaurs evolved but keep their form today?.. aside from komodo-dragon.. how come the physical condition were perfectly fitted millions of years ago..( and they keep it for another millions of years ).. but suddenly they evolved into a completely different form?..ie; birds.. and not just one species of dinosaur, but all of them.. all that roam on earth that is.. what made them change their form so extremely?.. global weather extreme changes?.. meteorite collision with earth?.. well they were doing fine for millions of years..and i bet in a million years the weather did changed a lot..

okay let's say that a meteor really did crashed down and changed the global weather conditions.. let's say that the sun can't get through the clouds of dust for thousands of years.. and an extreme winter were upon the earth.. what about the dinosaur that already live in the cold climate such as the north end.. what happenned to them?.. changed into a bird also?..

and finally..about museums.. really.. if something is displayed in the museum does it really mean it's real?.. have you ever heard the piltdown man case?.. the skull of the "missing link" was found by charles dawson..staged in the infamous London Natural History Museum and received many praise..even called the discovery of the century..then they found out that the skull were fabricated using orangutan jaw, human scalp and many other to form the great "missing link"..

museum is a business.. a multi-billion-dollars business.. just like any other business in the world.. the thing is.. they're running out of "materials" to sell..

just a thought.. no offense..

That's BS. I have friends who have found plenty of fossils in their backyard. In fact, most of the major disoveries were cited by average joes. But the corporations with the means to excavate, and examine did all of the work.