SH Archive Brace yourself, it's a dinosaur...

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: BrokenAgate
Date: 2019-10-25 19:58:26
Reaction Score: 3

Mammoth Skull

• Location: Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada
• Stratigraphy: Quaternary (Pleistocene) Alluvium
• Depth: 3’
• Time Period of Death: 1.5 Mya - 10,000 years ago

I don't get how a fossil that's buried only 3inches deep can be 10,000 to over a million years old, while a temple that's buried under thirty meters of dirt, sand, or mud is only a couple thousand...and, of course, more modern buildings that are similarly buried up to their knees are completely ignored. One more reason to disregard all mainstream dating methods. They are inconsistent and make no sense. Maybe that mammoth died only a few hundred years ago.

Post automatically merged: 10/25/19

Why are we talking about shills here? There could be tons of authentic fossilized stuff all over the place.

I am sure there are, but I don't think there are nearly as many dinosaur species as they claim. Any dinosaur family tree shows thousands of them, all neatly organized into clades, never mind that there is no DNA from which to determine these detailed relationships, and all of the fossils are fragmentary. And I think that all of the ones we see in museums are actually replicas, aren't they? When I browse pictures of dino fossils on Google, I don't really know if I am seeing the real thing or not. Some of them are encased in plaster, so we can't see anything at all. Like the ones in the picture of the Egyptian team, what are those? They could be plaster-coated boulders, for all I know. And on many pages, we don't get to see a fossil at all, only an artist's impression of what the animal looked like. I hope that mummified dinosaur is real, though, that's pretty cool...and probably less than a thousand years old.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-10-25 20:35:17
Reaction Score: 6

I wish archaeologists and paleontologists could be held legally liable, and responsible for fraud.

They should only have two options available with some sub-categories. And every time they claim something, the option chosen should be front and center.

• Option 1: WE KNOW, and these are the facts, supported by factual (not theory based) sources.
• Option 2: WE DO NOT KNOW
  • Here is our speculation, but remember - WE DO NOT KNOW.

 

[HollyHoly]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: HollyHoly
Date: 2019-10-25 20:52:31
Reaction Score: 1

I wish archaeologists and paleontologists could be held legally liable, and responsible for fraud.

They should only have two options available with some sub-categories. And every time they claim something, the option chosen should be front and center.

• Option 1: WE KNOW, and these are the facts, supported by factual (not theory based) sources.
• Option 2: WE DO NOT KNOW
  • Here is our speculation, but remember - WE DO NOT KNOW.

lots of times they just make it up on the fly because they think we're morons and we wont ask, but how? ,when ? what? who? they literally have an answer for everything, how can that be??

 

[hopesksefall]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: hopesksefall
Date: 2020-07-29 20:34:24
Reaction Score: 0

recent research has shown that it doesn't' take millions of years to fossilize something all it takes is water and pressure and chemicals and it could take weeks or days its a touchy subject for some, but I m starting to wonder if some certain glorious works of art aren't industrial fossilization of people . View attachment 32771

Back to ancient creatures and millions of years ,I mean landscapes can change overnight if you watch things like the videos of the Japans tsunami and heck I ve seen it myself during high floods here in AZ and when that happens bingo you get a layer of sediment and it didn't take millions of years it happened while you watched

I'm not saying I do or don't believe you, but, what research has show than it can take weeks or days for something to fossilize? I think that a discovery of that magnitude would be difficult, if not impossible, to contain.

I can see you believe this, but I try to evaluate this stuff personally - i.e. regardless of expert opinion.

Do you really believe that stuff buried 70 million years ago could now be on the surface, while something buried 10000 years ago would be 3 foot underground? When have you seen the ground churn like this, as it must have done for this to be true?


Yes, the fossil, now a stone, would degrade.... 'Cos stones degrade, right?

Just last week I picked up a pebble from the beach and was careless with it. I left it on the countertop overnight. You won't be surprised to hear that the next morning when I came downstairs the pebble had degraded to dust!!

If such actions as plate tectonics are real(and I believe that they are), why couldn't things rise to the surface over time? A lot of folks on this site like to bring up the theory of a mudflood catastrophe that could have buried or otherwise "erased" surface-level items(organic and inorganic). If a mudflood occurred within the last 10,000 years, then why couldn't something from 10k years ago be buried 3(or more) feet deep? Likewise, could not a creature died(or any item be placed) permanently in one spot 70 million years ago, perhaps at high-altitude, and not be buried very deeply if conditions are arid enough? This is not good logic.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-07-30 21:08:00
Reaction Score: 1

If such actions as plate tectonics are real(and I believe that they are), why couldn't things rise to the surface over time?

Yes, just last week I noticed that the hill I walk up near me, was 1cm further away! I'm only joking - I don't believe in plate tectonics. I try not to believe in anything really.

I've been in earthquakes, but I cannot say I know what the cause was. I recognise that this is put down to plate tectonics. I certainly have not experienced the ground move in the way that's described (creating the Himalayas etc), but then I'd have to sit around for millions of years to make that observation. But I'm open minded - why do you think I should believe that explanation?

I absolutely do believe in some sort of mudflood being real though - an I think you can easily imagine it caused by liquefaction:

I could imagine this working locally, as per the experiment above, in a small region, or perhaps over a very wide area. All it requires is that the earth is very wet and some movement.

 

[Silencedogood]

The term dinosaur didn't emerge until the mid-1800's, before then they were called dragons... and as for the millions of years part that is the only way they can justify their big bang, otherwise we'd have a bunch of half-mutated evolutions going on before our very eyes. As to the validity of bones I think, as we are not experts and can't examine the specimens ourselves, we should be skeptical of the information we are given and admit that what they say about it might be kinda true, or it might be a cool looking volcanic rock...