Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Ancient & Forbidden Knowledge / False History

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2014, 07:53 PM   #1
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default Are dinosaurs really millions of years old?

Every now again, the subject or interest in dinosaurs comes up and this makes me often question the motives or suggestions of people who claim that dinosaurs (or rather their fossils) are much younger than what we've been told or know about. From an official standpoint, we are told that they died out around 65 million yrs ago after the great meteor impact (which is still debated to this day) and that their fossils only remain and within rock strata that they (carbon dating experts) claim represents rock which helps date it to around so many millions of years - give or take a few million years. Aside from the carbon dating, that is pretty much the only evidence (as far as I know) that gives any evidence that fossils are of that age. Don't get me started on the bible and creation because I'm not one of those believers, I'm interested in all of the reported accounts of sightings of dinosaur-type creatures.

I find it hard to accept that fossils (or even tissue, which has been allegedly found in a T-Rex bone) can exist millions of years later, even without going into the subject closely, it just doesn't sit with me. Never mind fossils of 65 million yr old dinosaurs, but 280-100 million yr old fossils still remaining in the ground in some form or another?. Where's the evidence that they lived much later than this? not much apart from the Paluxy 'human' footprints and the carved figurines which were discovered in Peru (which are alleged to be fake).

I think it's possible that some dinosaurs managed to escape whatever allegedly killed them off (whether it was a meteor or whatever) and lived on until maybe when early humans began the emerge (again, taking into account the official story), but whether they lived at the when they did or much earlier (say upto 20,000 yrs ago) is very debatable and much denied.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2014, 08:25 PM   #2
fishin
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,241
Likes: 13 (12 Posts)
Default

Their demise is much more recent than scientists will admit.

Massive Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovery In China – Includes Skin And Feathers!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/massive-...-feathers.html
fishin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2014, 10:06 PM   #3
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Interesting stuff. The problem I have with this is why don't they or didn't they just admit that dinosaurs are much, much younger than we've believed?, what's the big worry?. I know some people will say "it's because they're afraid it will re-write history or throw everything we know about them (or us for that matter) out of the window". I don't think that it would. I don't understand what the big secret would be behind it, so why would they lie?. What I find strange about the reign of the dinosaurs is the established view that they lived for 160 million years. To me that sounds one hell of a long time for even such a diverse group of species to exist, too long for my liking. I find it hard to believe that most species such as Triceratops, T-Rex, Allosaurus, etc lived for around a few million years each, that's more than the entire human race that's allegedly been around and our current fauna and flora.

If they lived as recently as 10,000 yrs ago then it throws into question what really killed them off or limited their numbers; maybe it was the iceage or maybe we were the blame and hunted them to extinction. I don't cite the carved Peruvian artefacts with the dinosaur engravings as hard evidence, not because they are fakes per se, but because they may not have represented 'real' flesh and bone animals, but in fact could've been artwork created by shamans when they used hallucinogenic plants such as ayahasca to visit other realms; they could've seen dinosaur-type creatures in those hallucinogenic states and then they would have depicted them on their artwork/rock art. Why would carbon dating of rocks be false? if a fossil is preserved in such rock, and the rock/sediment is accurately dated, then surely the fossil within it must be from around the same time. Very confusing issue.

Last edited by techman; 08-03-2014 at 10:20 PM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2014, 10:13 PM   #4
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,580 (1,693 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
Every now again, the subject or interest in dinosaurs comes up and this makes me often question the motives or suggestions of people who claim that dinosaurs (or rather their fossils) are much younger than what we've been told or know about. From an official standpoint, we are told that they died out around 65 million yrs ago after the great meteor impact (which is still debated to this day) and that their fossils only remain and within rock strata that they (carbon dating experts) claim represents rock which helps date it to around so many millions of years - give or take a few million years. Aside from the carbon dating, that is pretty much the only evidence (as far as I know) that gives any evidence that fossils are of that age. Don't get me started on the bible and creation because I'm not one of those believers, I'm interested in all of the reported accounts of sightings of dinosaur-type creatures.

I find it hard to accept that fossils (or even tissue, which has been allegedly found in a T-Rex bone) can exist millions of years later, even without going into the subject closely, it just doesn't sit with me. Never mind fossils of 65 million yr old dinosaurs, but 280-100 million yr old fossils still remaining in the ground in some form or another?. Where's the evidence that they lived much later than this? not much apart from the Paluxy 'human' footprints and the carved figurines which were discovered in Peru (which are alleged to be fake).

I think it's possible that some dinosaurs managed to escape whatever allegedly killed them off (whether it was a meteor or whatever) and lived on until maybe when early humans began the emerge (again, taking into account the official story), but whether they lived at the when they did or much earlier (say upto 20,000 yrs ago) is very debatable and much denied.
6,018 years old tops.
God ( a merry prankster) created then buried the fossils all at different depths in the earth on day five of creation back in 4004 BC.
Just to wind up Richard Dawkins.
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2014, 10:23 PM   #5
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

I wish people would stop bringing this creationist, god created them and left them behind with the flood crap into the conversation, it ruins the seriousness of the subject.

Last edited by techman; 08-03-2014 at 10:24 PM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2014, 10:25 PM   #6
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,580 (1,693 Posts)
Default

Sorry, you didn't specify that your thread was ring-fenced to evolution boosters.
I'll get me coat.
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 10:42 PM   #7
fishin
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,241
Likes: 13 (12 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
Interesting stuff. The problem I have with this is why don't they or didn't they just admit that dinosaurs are much, much younger than we've believed?, what's the big worry?.
The big worry is accepted evolutionary theory which requires massive periods of time to be even theroertically workable. They can't admit dinsosaurs are recent without causing problems for evolutionary theory.
fishin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 11:09 PM   #8
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,580 (1,693 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishin43diqs View Post
The big worry is accepted evolutionary theory which requires massive periods of time to be even theroertically workable. They can't admit dinsosaurs are recent without causing problems for evolutionary theory.
For sure.
Some folks forget that 'theory' part of 'evolutionary theory' and in doing so mistake a theory for a fact when 'in fact' evolution is just one story amongst many other stories about origins.
I prefer the 4004 BC and 6-day creation story.
( God being in the union got to take day 7 off as a statutory rest day)
Don't necessarily believe it. I just like the story and it's as sound as any other story about origins ever will or can be.
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2014, 01:46 PM   #9
harte
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 105
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
For sure.
Some folks forget that 'theory' part of 'evolutionary theory' and in doing so mistake a theory for a fact when 'in fact' evolution is just one story amongst many other stories about origins.
Evolution, written with a small "e," is a fact and easily observable.

"Evolution," with a capital "E" is a theory proposed to describe the mechanisms by which evolution (little "e") works.

That's what a scientific theory does. It is a model to use to interpret the established factual data.

Harte
harte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2014, 11:45 AM   #10
spooky24
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 20
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The thing that interest me is the fact that so many places on earth that have no fossils whatsoever. Where I'm at now was thousands of feet under water for tens of millions of years. All that is left is the great coal deposits as everything else has been washed into the Gulf of Mexico. There is much debate as to when this abatement receded however it is conceivable that some dinosaurs could have existed at the time the waters withdrew-that would put them less than a million years rather than 65.

Also, I have raised chickens my whole life and it is amazing how much they resemble the large land carnivores. No one really knows if dinosaurs had reptile skin or feathers.
spooky24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-05-2014, 02:15 PM   #11
fishin
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,241
Likes: 13 (12 Posts)
Default

"Scientist Stumped by Actual Dinosaur Skin
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

Being the first ever to examine a dinosaur fossil long buried in sedimentary rock is thrilling enough for a field researcher. But a team working in Canada found an exhilarating bonus on a hadrosaur fossil fragment—it had actual skin still attached.

They found the duck-bill dinosaur fossil near Grand Prairie, Alberta. University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi operates state-of-the art synchrotron equipment that can detect and identify chemical signatures without destroying samples. He plans to use the technology to investigate the special fossil and its skin. He told Canadian Light Source (CLS), which houses the synchrotron device, "As we excavated the fossil, I thought that we were looking at a skin impression. Then I noticed a piece came off and I realized this is not ordinary—this is real skin."1

What do they plan to do with this "real skin?" Barbi said, "Everyone involved with the excavation was incredibly excited and we started discussing research projects right away."1 Each project will examine a different question. For example, they plan to sort out what color the dinosaur skin may have been by investigating the skin’s pigment-containing melanosomes. Researchers in China performed a similar analysis on a Sinosauropteryx dinosaur in 2010.2

Which research question carries the most mystery? "But perhaps the greatest question Barbi is trying to answer at the CLS is how the fossil remained intact for around 70-million years." Barbi declared, "There is something special about this fossil and the area where it was found, and I am going to find out what it is."1

Special indeed. But finding the right answer works best by first asking the right question, and focusing on some special quality "about this fossil" that enabled it to persist "for around 70-million years" does not appear to be the right question. That line of research will leapfrog a far more fundamental and relevant mystery: How long could actual dinosaur skin tissue possibly last?

Who, upon entering a room and encountering a burning candle would immediately begin to wonder what special something about that candle enabled it to continually burn for a million years? Would it not make more sense to first question how long such a candle could potentially burn before going out?

Similarly, questions that assume some special factor in the skin or in the earth could preserve original organic dinosaur remains for even one million years ignore what is already widely known about skin protein decay. A candle’s flame can be extinguished and relit, but skin decays continually and relentlessly until it is completely gone, becoming dust in thousands, not millions of years. The research questions so far proposed typically exclude the very best explanation—these fossils look young because they are young.

Good luck answering your greatest research question, Mauricio Barbi. Research that ignores the most sensible solution to the dinosaur skin dilemma signals a poor start."

http://www.icr.org/article/scientist...tual-dinosaur/
fishin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2014, 07:40 AM   #12
hydeman11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Howdy, first time poster, never a lurker, found the site while sleepless and looking for cryptozoology forums.
Let me lay my cards on the table, I'm what you might call a "brainwashed" sheep-person. I have spent three years in college learning what academia teaches about Geology. That said, I've spent a fair amount of time actually observing rocks and fossils (although paleo isn't exactly a strong-suit, more of an elective and hobby.) in bedded strata as well as igneous and metamorphic rock bodies. I found this thread interesting and I thought I would make an account to share what I've been brainwa... taught. ;D

C-14:
OP, you mention C-14 dating for rocks. C-14 has a lab measured half-life reported to be ~5730 years, making it useful to date things ~45-50K years old before the measurements are too small to accurately gauge how many half lives a particular sample has "experienced."
Now, there are several other limitations and factors that may mess with C-14 analyses. For example, C-14 measurements must be compared to a known atmospheric condition (which we can acquire from ice core data and even ancient organism's calcitic shells, with a particular reference to old coral, but that is a bit more difficult...) and have an estimated or calculated accumulation rate in organisms. This works best with plants and terrestrial animals, but sees another limitation in animals that live near the South Pole (where atmospheric conditions are such that the air is actually "older," circulating and "removing" the radiocarbon before it accumulates in organisms, thus making things seem much older than they are). Basically, the atmospheric C-14 reservoir is CO2, but that's not the only source... Again, variables. Which brings me to your (OP's) original post...
C-14 dating a rock... It's a bad idea. Most rocks, unless you have a piece of limestone or some coal, will not have much carbon at all, and what C-14 you do find will likely be a product of carbon being radiated by uranium in the crust, and not atmospheric CO2, meaning the measurement is nearly useless.

Radioisotope Absolute Dating Methods:
However, there are better methods. Methods, such as K-Ar (argon is a gas, and gasses would escape a crystal unless the crystal was there first, and thus we know the argon is a decay product...) in granites or U-Pb in zircon (non-detrital sources if you want to know ages of a layer, as zircon crystals are tough and long-lasting...) are particularly useful. Unfortunately, these two systems are best used in crystalline, igneous rocks (not sedimentary.) However, where rock layers are interbedded with igneous and sedimentary layers, you can confine a range of time based on these radioisotopes. Using the fossils in this sandwich of rock section, you can extend the rock layers with specific fossils laterally in space, and even when there is no igneous rock, those fossils are age determiners. (That's relative dating and fossil stratigraphy.)
I can personally claim to have seen these layers of rock with specific fossil groups, and although I am only familiar with Ordovician to late Devonian or early Carboniferous rocks, I can assure you that distinct fossil groups do exist. For example, the old saying goes " you don't find Cambrian bunny rabbits." In other words, no trilobite fossils found with mammals. But what you do find are small mammals with dinosaurs, toward the end of the Cretaceous.
That leads to the main point of the topic... kind of.

Dinosaurs and Meteors:
The meteor impact happened, we have evidence. What is debatable, although most geologists seem convinced, is what actually killed everything. The majority believes the impact was large enough to kill most things. Flood basalts on a massive scale could have vented enough CO2 to heat up the Earth... No one denies the flood basalts, in fact most people I've seen talk about it join the meteor and the basalts... Doesn't matter. Evidence for bolide collision is strong in the form of the Cretaceous/Tertiary iridium boundary, a layer of rock with excessively high iridium levels (heavy metal which is theorized to theorized to have sunk into the core with iron and nickel leaving crust depleted in it, but remaining high in "space debris" that did not differentiate like the Earth.), the Chicxulub Crater, shocked quartz (which only forms under high pressure with moderate heat, usually impacts) and so on... This layer marks the end of dinosaur fossils, and is well measured by those same igneous rocks that flowed and the iridium layer.
(Little history here, the relative geological time scale is based on fossils. Each large change (Era) shows a marked shift in life forms.)

Now, as for that pesky hadrosaur skin...
Allow me to post the link for the original press release that even that "differently" biased article that has been linked to cites as the first source.
http://www.lightsource.ca/news/media...e_20130426.php
The researchers are quoted as saying "this fossil" in reference to the "skin." Simple misunderstanding. The "skin" isn't skin. It's fossilized skin. What was exciting about that discovery was that it was a three-dimensional skin fossil, meaning that there was potential for seeing preserved cellular microstructure as well as perhaps finding some encased protein breakdown products. (Imagine finding a strand of hair encased in the cement of a side-walk.) Claims of soft tissue get thrown around quite often, but it's sadly often the result of poor journalism. I'd suggest reading the actual scientific papers of the reporters' versions.

So, in conclusion, I don't mean to offend or step on toes. Merely to share what I've bought into as reality, whether it be brainwashing or otherwise. Even if some of you don't agree with what I have to say, I think it's always nice to see how the other side thinks, right? I may be brainwashed, but I am passionate about the topic. I hope that came across. I don't expect to be posting again, so I thought I'd share as much as I thought was needed to get people on the right search terms if they wanted to know more. I wish you all the best and I'm sorry for the long post (and possible thread necro).
hydeman11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2014, 06:23 PM   #13
maccoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 746
Likes: 12 (9 Posts)
Default

Where is Nigel Marven. He will clear all this up
maccoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2014, 06:41 PM   #14
maxine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,158
Likes: 23 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
Every now again, the subject or interest in dinosaurs comes up and this makes me often question the motives or suggestions of people who claim that dinosaurs (or rather their fossils) are much younger than what we've been told or know about. From an official standpoint, we are told that they died out around 65 million yrs ago after the great meteor impact (which is still debated to this day) and that their fossils only remain and within rock strata that they (carbon dating experts) claim represents rock which helps date it to around so many millions of years - give or take a few million years. Aside from the carbon dating, that is pretty much the only evidence (as far as I know) that gives any evidence that fossils are of that age. Don't get me started on the bible and creation because I'm not one of those believers, I'm interested in all of the reported accounts of sightings of dinosaur-type creatures.

I find it hard to accept that fossils (or even tissue, which has been allegedly found in a T-Rex bone) can exist millions of years later, even without going into the subject closely, it just doesn't sit with me. Never mind fossils of 65 million yr old dinosaurs, but 280-100 million yr old fossils still remaining in the ground in some form or another?. Where's the evidence that they lived much later than this? not much apart from the Paluxy 'human' footprints and the carved figurines which were discovered in Peru (which are alleged to be fake).

I think it's possible that some dinosaurs managed to escape whatever allegedly killed them off (whether it was a meteor or whatever) and lived on until maybe when early humans began the emerge (again, taking into account the official story), but whether they lived at the when they did or much earlier (say upto 20,000 yrs ago) is very debatable and much denied.
I don't believe there was a meteor impact! I believe that other fighting ET races - took them out!
__________________
"Justice should be harsh.......but especially for those who've denied it to others!"
maxine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2014, 06:45 PM   #15
bikerdruid
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: north peace bioregion of north america's great boreal forest
Posts: 27,115
Likes: 611 (379 Posts)
Default

Are dinosaurs really millions of years old?

no. most of them are long dead.
bikerdruid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2014, 12:17 AM   #16
boots
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 15,676
Likes: 432 (307 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
Are dinosaurs really millions of years old?

no. most of them are long dead.
lol,
boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2014, 08:04 PM   #17
1zenith
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: In a Huge Dark Damp Cave
Posts: 5,396
Likes: 14 (14 Posts)
Default OMG this is soooo FUNNY!!!!

Ppl on D I forums will soon learn ALL HISTORY was taught WRONG.


Titanic, Great Wall of China, OJ, and now Dinosaurs??



I have actually thought about what OP is talking about before.
The time frames of which Indians existed and dinosaurs etc.

And how evolution it total bull shit.

Well on "ancient alien" show ,they said the ALIENS killed the dinosaurs
because they wouldnt be able to exist among humans which they were CREATING at the time. Heheee.

Last edited by 1zenith; 26-06-2014 at 08:05 PM.
1zenith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2014, 08:14 PM   #18
1zenith
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: In a Huge Dark Damp Cave
Posts: 5,396
Likes: 14 (14 Posts)
Default Ya something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxine View Post
I don't believe there was a meteor impact! I believe that other fighting ET races - took them out!
Ya "Ancient Aliens" show said they shoved a metorite on them to take them out.

So they could work on their other 'project'. Which was humans.
I think, I dont remember exactly.



See , I know they E ts have lots of abilities but i am not so sure they have ability to move planets and meteorites to create cataclysms.
1zenith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2014, 08:25 PM   #19
1zenith
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: In a Huge Dark Damp Cave
Posts: 5,396
Likes: 14 (14 Posts)
Default Uhhh, probably 20000yrs ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
Every now again, the subject or interest in dinosaurs comes up and this makes me often question the motives or suggestions of people who claim that dinosaurs (or rather their fossils) are much younger than what we've been told or know about. From an official standpoint, we are told that they died out around 65 million yrs ago after the great meteor impact (which is still debated to this day) and that their fossils only remain and within rock strata that they (carbon dating experts) claim represents rock which helps date it to around so many millions of years - give or take a few million years. Aside from the carbon dating, that is pretty much the only evidence (as far as I know) that gives any evidence that fossils are of that age. Don't get me started on the bible and creation because I'm not one of those believers, I'm interested in all of the reported accounts of sightings of dinosaur-type creatures.

I find it hard to accept that fossils (or even tissue, which has been allegedly found in a T-Rex bone) can exist millions of years later, even without going into the subject closely, it just doesn't sit with me. Never mind fossils of 65 million yr old dinosaurs, but 280-100 million yr old fossils still remaining in the ground in some form or another?. Where's the evidence that they lived much later than this? not much apart from the Paluxy 'human' footprints and the carved figurines which were discovered in Peru (which are alleged to be fake).

I think it's possible that some dinosaurs managed to escape whatever allegedly killed them off (whether it was a meteor or whatever) and lived on until maybe when early humans began the emerge (again, taking into account the official story), but whether they lived at the when they did or much earlier (say upto 20,000 yrs ago) is very debatable and much denied.

Well i know that in state of MO back in 2002, they found a big ASS dinsosaur fossel very intake in the ground that was bigger than 2 houses
and it wasnt that deep in the ground. They found it while trying to build a big house.

So ya you are saying that fossel is 20000 yrs old and not 280 million years old? Well you can't ever trust our teachers that taught us,
so you are probably right.

I always qstn'd that crap too. Like they told us the MOLLUSKS embedded in the rocks were 300 million years old. Remember??
AND i always wondered "hmmmm how do they know they are that old when they as a human didnt even exist back 300 million yrs ago".

Because they are just guessing outta their butt and its massivly inaccurate guessses.
1zenith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2014, 08:29 PM   #20
sigfrodr
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Exactly Where I Need To Be
Posts: 22
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Whilst investigating this issue you will find that people have never found any signs of the evolutionary factor involving dinosaurs, no evidence of them evolving into there form as we know it almost like they where just put here and left to get on with it then recently where wiped out. Could have been a alien versus predator safari.
sigfrodr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.