The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

[Dcopymope]

*

Extinction-mystery elegantly solved ...

"LONDON – Dinosaurs may have farted themselves to extinction, according to a new study from British scientists."



The researchers calculated that the prehistoric beasts pumped out more than 520 million tons (472 million tonnes) of methane a year -- enough to warm the planet and hasten their own eventual demise.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/ ... tists-say/

I smell a whiff of Al Gore-backing behind those British boffins ...

Shucks! if only some smart troglodyte had carbon-taxed the dinos - the charming beasts would still be here with us, to the delight of zoo-goers - and hey - maybe our cars would be dinofart-powered!

Wow, so first it was an asteroid, now its the dino's breathing too much hot air that's the cause of their extinction. This is the biggest bunch of bull shit I've heard in a long time. How exactly did they come up with these calculations anyway? I guess the underlying message of this article is that they are trying to breath more hot air up everyone's ass.

[anonjedi2]

I don't even know what to say. I feel like it should be an Onion article. Combining dinosaur and global warming propaganda into one? How clever.

[lux]

The "shocking discoveries" of Mary Schweitzer ...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee-F3SyEOgY

Schweitzer's "impossible" accomplishment has a familiar ring. It is reminiscent of NASA's recent "impossible" Martian rover landing.

Just thinking about a piece of meat lasting 68 million years does seem like a wee bit of a stretch, doesn't it?

[Dcopymope]

The "shocking discoveries" of Mary Schweitzer ...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee-F3SyEOgY

Schweitzer's "impossible" accomplishment has a familiar ring. It is reminiscent of NASA's recent "impossible" Martian rover landing.

Just thinking about a piece of meat lasting 68 million years does seem like a wee bit of a stretch, doesn't it?

From the video @ 2:01 mark:

"The things Mary was finding inside dinosaur bones, blood vessels, and even what seemed to be intact cells poses a radical challenge to the existing rules of science"

And, who decides what the rules of science are anyway? Who decided that this pagan religion called evolution should be the staple for anything called scientific? This quote below sums this up very well.

Every time a challenge to current evolutionary theory arises, geologists and astronomers dutifully tack billions and billions of eons onto their theories about the earth’s age, adding however many ancient epochs are deemed necessary for some new impossibility to be explained.

Faith and Science, Falsely So-Called: http://www.gty.org/blog/B100513

[bostonterrierowner]

"pagan religion"

Are you obsessed or what?

I am afraid he is . Big time

12 apostles , 12 knights of round table , 12 zodiac signs . Any bells ringing ?:)

Northern hemisphere , 22nd of December and Sun being in its lowest position in the year , staying like this for 3 days and later moving up again . Heard it before?

I hate to be a buzz killer but there is only one religion with the Sun being a universal deity . Bible is an allegory describing in a very veiled fashion movements of the Sun through the zodiac etc.

Let's rid our forum of religious fanaticism and related , infantile content . There is only one law and commandment in the Universe :

Do no harm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The rest is bullshit!!! PsyOp!!!!

By the way I have just become a father for the first time ......

Regards

[nonhocapito]

Dear bostonterrierowner, a thousand congratulations for the great news. Happy for you.

***

As to declaring scientific "truths" fake, I already stated my piece several times... I'll just limit myself to say this: I can see controlling single lines of research, I am sure this happens within and without the academy -- but I have a hard time seeing this happen for "big picture" lines, such as the history of our planet and of life, where biology, geology and a hundred other fields, and the efforts of thousands of ambitious individuals, converge to confirm certain findings. Also: one thing is to debunk the popularization of science (which is bound to be inexact in itself, being a reduction and depending so much on the bias of the writer), another thing entirely is to debunk science itself, which requires doing science -- and there is no way around this, unfortunately.

[anonjedi2]

Dear bostonterrierowner, a thousand congratulations for the great news. Happy for you.

***

As to declaring scientific "truths" fake, I already stated my piece several times... I'll just limit myself to say this: I can see controlling single lines of research, I am sure this happens within and without the academy -- but I have a hard time seeing this happen for "big picture" lines, such as the history of our planet and of life, where biology, geology and a hundred other fields, and the efforts of thousands of ambitious individuals, converge to confirm certain findings. Also: one thing is to debunk the popularization of science (which is bound to be inexact in itself, being a reduction and depending so much on the bias of the writer), another thing entirely is to debunk science itself, which requires doing science -- and there is no way around this, unfortunately.

And therein lies the problem. Can any scientist do "space science" for example? Global Warming has proven that the institution of science is 100% open to corruption. In today's world of modern science, science fiction can become science. Science is a tricky thing since it's always evolving and can change anytime. Is it not reasonable to surmise that certain fields of science are not actually conducting science? Climate Scientists are making assumptions, using computer models and playing with variables. They are not reproducing experiments and confirming their theories by testing real world scenarios and variables. None of it is based on empirical measurements. The wiki says "science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world”. An older definition of science would call it a body of knowledge that could be logically and/or convincingly explained. Quite a bit of what passes for science these days would not fit either of those “classical” definitions of science.

Can we even call paleontology a science? Is the art/science line not blurred when studying dinosaurs? If we wanted to examine a fossil for ourselves, would we be able to do that? Or would we need to be indoctrinated to the "facts" and "history" of that discipline before we could get the proper credentials to pursue that avenue of study. And if we were indoctrinated and all of our learning, knowledge and science was based on a false set of fundamentals (which we couldn't prove otherwise), would we not be basing all of our assumptions on a story? Wouldn't our scientific contributions, experiments, studies be conducted in such a way as to uphold these fundamentals and add more evidence that supports the story? Then if you found the bones of an ancient cousin of a Kimono Dragon, could you not "turn it into" a dinosaur with a little imagination and "science with bias"? In the same way that every climate scientist's goal is to "prove global warming exists" couldn't the birth of paleontology be to "prove that these fossils come from a thing we shall call dinosaur". Wouldn't you be able to create your own field of science this way? We already know there has been some fakery, isn't it reasonable to assume that paleontology is a pseudo-science?

It is estimated that there are 30,000 - 50,000 paleontologists in the world today. Isn't that a small enough number to at least consider the possibility of an "elite club of people" who want to believe in something so bad they'll create science to make it true (even if unconsciously)? I can certainly see a scenario where the scam could have been set up by the first discoverers, and fossils are buried over time only to be "discovered" by unwitting paleontologists of future generations. Nobody would even have to be "in on it" and everyone would want to be recognized for the achievement of finding dinosaur bones that they'd already have an extreme bias when conducting this discipline/science. Find some bones of a really old whale? Let's assume it's a dinosaur and conduct our experiments with that as the starting point and everything after that point is designed to confirm that starting point.

At the end of the day, you will likely have to rely on an "expert" to tell you about the science and there's a chance that person could be completely duped without even knowing it. Do they all have to be gatekeepers and liars? I think a lot of scientists are just really gullible, lack common sense, and operate on false principles, fundamentals and perhaps even data that is unreliable (global warming). I don't think science needs to be done to counter outrageous and far-fetched claims (Giant Lizards, Aliens, Moon Landings, Global Warming, Mars Rovers). These claims are so massive and so outside the realm of logic and common sense, "taking the scientists word for it" just isn't good enough.

The story of P.T. Barnum and the Cardiff Giant is a great example as to how something like this can be pulled off. Motivations (outside of the religious one) include fame, prestige and lots of money.

The Cardiff Giant was one of the most famous hoaxes in United States history. It was a 10-foot (3.0 m) tall purported "petrified man" uncovered on October 16, 1869, by workers digging a well behind the barn of William C. "Stub" Newell in Cardiff, New York. Both it and an unauthorized copy made by P.T. Barnum are still on display.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant

[bostonterrierowner]

"pagan religion"

Are you obsessed or what?

I am afraid he is . Big time

12 apostles , 12 knights of round table , 12 zodiac signs . Any bells ringing ?:)

Northern hemisphere , 22nd of December and Sun being in its lowest position in the year , staying like this for 3 days and later moving up again . Heard it before?

I hate to be a buzz killer but there is only one religion with the Sun being a universal deity . Bible is an allegory describing in a very veiled fashion movements of the Sun through the zodiac etc.

Let's rid our forum of religious fanaticism and related , infantile content . There is only one law and commandment in the Universe :

Do no harm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The rest is bullshit!!! PsyOp!!!!

By the way I have just become a father for the first time ......

Regards

If you want to talk of "PsyOp!!!", then your statement about the Bible is a prime example. All of it came straight out of the long debunked film called "Zeitgeist", whose sources all came from Freemasonic/New Age material, not from any legitimate historical sources. I, like the 100 million others who watched it used to believe in this rubbish for years until I actually checked into the claims being made to find out that its all complete New Age baloney from top to bottom. Before you scream "PsyOp!!!!" on a particular subject, you should make sure you actually know what you're talking about.

I have never seen Zeitgeist

Marcus Aurelius , Giordano Bruno ,Leonardo da Vinci , Manly P. Hall were around before this movie was made . Weren't they ? Let alone the Sun and Julian and later Gregorian calendar ....

I think that worshipers of YES KRISHNA would be insulted by calling them "pagan" by the guys from JESUS CHRIST camp given these two "saviors" were crucified in a very similar fashion . "Krishna" did it a couple of thousands years before "Christ" as a matter of " fact"

Anyways , peace with you my friend . I respect you as a researcher but please restrain from shoveling this religious "content" down forum members' throats and especially mine .

[brianv]

The way I see it:

What's the difference between New Age baloney and Old Age baloney?

[anonjedi2]

Early Dinosaur Embryos Found in China

A site in China contains 190-million-year old organic remains from non-avian dinosaurs and dinosaur embryos, and some of the world’s oldest known eggshells, according to a new study.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130724093 ... diate=true

So it looks like we've suddenly gone from 66 million years to 190 million years in just one article!

[simonshack]

Can we even call paleontology a science? Is the art/science line not blurred when studying dinosaurs? If we wanted to examine a fossil for ourselves, would we be able to do that? Or would we need to be indoctrinated to the "facts" and "history" of that discipline before we could get the proper credentials to pursue that avenue of study.

Dear Anonjedi,

I have to that say that your contributions to this forum are evolving - and getting better and better.

Also: one thing is to debunk the popularization of science (which is bound to be inexact in itself, being a reduction and depending so much on the bias of the writer), another thing entirely is to debunk science itself, which requires doing science -- and there is no way around this, unfortunately.

Dear Nonho,

I keep appreciating your obviously sincere and righteous calls to caution - directed to anyone who questions any 'scientifically established' knowledge, backed by zillions of hours of research carried out by various, learned individuals/academics of this planet. To be sure, most of the topics addressed on this forum get commented by people (including myself, of course) who have little or no experience in given fields of knowledge - and have NOT spent zillions of hours of research in given scientific fields. So caution MUST be observed by all of us. No question about it.

However (and just as an example to make my present point) I trust that EVERY SINGLE (non-paleontologist) human being on this planet must wonder - just like my humble self - how 'scientific' a claim such as this may be:

"The dinosaurs farted themselves to extinction".

'These dinosaurs may have produced more methane than all the modern sources put together.'

- Co-researcher David Wilkinson
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/ ... tists-say/

And yes, these are claims actually made by esteemed, modern-day British paleontoligists / experts/ academics/ scientists.

I do believe that the collective efforts of our forum members have earned, over the years, "the 'right to err by a little margin of disbelief" - given the extraordinary amounts of bullshit that the 'established scientific community' of this planet churns out on a daily basis.


Dear Dcopymope,

You wrote:

I'm trying to keep it as "non-religious" as the subject allows me to be, just briefly setting the record straight on what should have been known as a long debunked accusation that was ripped straight out of Freemasonic/Theosophical/New Age material, especially from someone who spews out of his orifice the terms "PsyOp!!!!" and "bullshit!!!" with such undeserved authority.

With what 'deserved authority' do YOU keep entertaining your religious beliefs - to yourself and to this forum?

[nonhocapito]

However (and just as an example to make my present point) I trust that EVERY SINGLE (non-paleontologist) human being on this planet must wonder - just like my humble self - how 'scientific' a claim such as this may be:

"The dinosaurs farted themselves to extinction".

'These dinosaurs may have produced more methane than all the modern sources put together.'

- Co-researcher David Wilkinson
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/ ... tists-say/

But that's exactly my point! That's a mainstream article meant to popularize some bit of research and turn it into a piece o propaganda or a piece of fluff whose only purpose is to sell more ads. How significant, how accurate, how similar to that content is the original scientific paper? Was it really meant to mock us and feed us bogus science? Does it really say that dinosaurs farted themselves to death? Or does it maybe just investigate this possibility among others? We don't know and probably couldn't tell with certainty.

More importantly: down the line of scientific research, will that particular hypothesis survive? or will it be discarded together with a million other ones, in the constant efforts of all the ambitious researchers to give a meaning to their careers, or to have a breakthrough? Is it legit debunking to take an article as a suggestion that the science it talks about is bogus? Is it not rather an occasion to simply point out how superficial and misleading the mainstream news are?

(But please rest assured: I have no reason one way or the other to "protect" scientific establishments or to suggest that paleontology must be taken as it is as truth. I admit the possibility that there might be direct manipulation at the source, and I also have in mind the nature of science, which is to contradict itself several times before finding temporary truths to hold on to -- My concern is just with our method and the good standing of our forum).

[Dcopymope]

I have never seen Zeitgeist

Marcus Aurelius , Giordano Bruno ,Leonardo da Vinci , Manly P. Hall were around before this movie was made . Weren't they ? Let alone the Sun and Julian and later Gregorian calendar ....

I think that worshipers of YES KRISHNA would be insulted by calling them "pagan" by the guys from JESUS CHRIST camp given these two "saviors" were crucified in a very similar fashion . "Krishna" did it a couple of thousands years before "Christ" as a matter of " fact"

Anyways , peace with you my friend . I respect you as a researcher but please restrain from shoveling this religious "content" down forum members' throats and especially mine .

Putting this issue to rest (as it actually was years ago):

Dr. Norman Geisler, author of more than 70 books, writes, “The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament [resurrection] on mythology, not the reverse. The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris. In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld...This is far different than Jesus’ resurrection account where he was the gloriously risen Prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven....even if there are myths about dying and rising gods prior to Christianity, that doesn't mean the New Testaments writers copied from them. The fictional TV show Star Trek preceded the U.S. Space Shuttle program, but that doesn’t mean that newspaper reports of space shuttle missions are influenced by Star Trek episodes!” (I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, 2004, p. 312).

[anonjedi2]

Thanks for the kind words, Simon. I love this website and the community here and really do want to contribute where I can, so I appreciate that my efforts are appreciated.

Here is the entire two page summary of the "study", written by the "scientists" themselves. (PDF)

http://download.cell.com/current-biolog ... diate=true

I agree that the media will always sensationalize a study such as this, but scientists are surely aware of this, are they not? The reason why scientists can make such silly claims about methane, carbon dioxide, dinosaurs, or any other such nonsense is because they use creative language and can therefore hypothesize almost anything. Since their funding usually relies on trying to further prove one theory or another, won't they always lean in that direction while using creative language to cover their asses?

Data shows that the dinosaurs might have done such and such. Which implies they very well might not have.

These findings could prove...

Carbon dioxide may be responsible for...

Some scientists believe...

Data collected shows us that some odd thing may have resulted in...

Recorded measurements suggest that...

etc...

More than anything, this is an obvious attempt to link carbon dioxide to warming and comes directly from the Global Warming propaganda camp, laced with fear as usual.

[simonshack]

Dear Dcopymope,

You wrote:

I'm trying to keep it as "non-religious" as the subject allows me to be, just briefly setting the record straight on what should have been known as a long debunked accusation that was ripped straight out of Freemasonic/Theosophical/New Age material, especially from someone who spews out of his orifice the terms "PsyOp!!!!" and "bullshit!!!" with such undeserved authority.

With what 'deserved authority' do YOU keep entertaining your religious beliefs - to yourself and to this forum?

Quoting myself:

With what 'deserved authority' do YOU keep entertaining your religious beliefs - to yourself and to this forum?