Ancient Fossils are Made Up or More Recent?

PrincepAugus

Well-known member
Messages
373
Likes
619
#1
So I remember KD here had an idea of wanting to talk about fossils being fake or recent, but it hasn't been posted yet, so I 'll try with the best of my efforts lol.

So looking at the profile posts, I see Onthebit posted an article saying that scientists can make fossils in just one day! This is a game changer, since if we are to talk about things like the Bone Wars and living or recent "dinosaur" body parts.

Article about one day fossilization

Scientific paper of the above link

THE BONE WARS
The Bone Wars was a "ruthless competition" of two men named Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope during, of course, the mysterious Gilded Age of American history.
340px-Othniel_Charles_Marsh_&_Edward_Drinker_Cope_bw.jpg
The rivalry between Othniel Charles Marsh (left) and Edward Drinker Cope (right) sparked the Bone Wars.
The Bone Wars, also known as the Great Dinosaur Rush, was a period of intense and ruthlessly competitive fossil hunting and discovery during the Gilded Age of American history, marked by a heated rivalry between Edward Drinker Cope (of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia) and Othniel Charles Marsh (of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale). Each of the two paleontologists used underhanded methods to try to outdo the other in the field, resorting to bribery, theft, and the destruction of bones. Each scientist also sought to ruin his rival's reputation and cut off his funding, using attacks in scientific publications.

Their search for fossils led them west to rich bone beds in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. From 1877 to 1892, both paleontologists used their wealth and influence to finance their own expeditions and to procure services and dinosaur bones from fossil hunters. By the end of the Bone Wars, both men had exhausted their funds in the pursuit of paleontological supremacy.

Cope and Marsh were financially and socially ruined by their attempts to outcompete and disgrace each other, but they made important contributions to science and the field of paleontology, and provided substantial material for further work—both scientists left behind many unopened boxes of fossils after their deaths. The efforts of the two men led to more than 136 new species of dinosaurs being discovered and described. The products of the Bone Wars resulted in an increase in knowledge of prehistoric life, and sparked the public's interest in dinosaurs, leading to continued fossil excavation in North America in the decades to follow. Many historical books and fictional adaptations have been published about this period of intense fossil-hunting activity.
Note that so many bones were destroyed and that it was because of this that we somehow have a gold mine of fossil and dinosaur species information as well as peaking interest in the public mind. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole effort was not a "rivalry" of stupidly epic proportions, but an operation to destroy fossils of giants, dwarves, and other strange creatures both humanoid and animal.


RECENT FOSSILS AND CO-HABITATION WITH HUMANS

These are articles mostly in 2016 and only found in those specific esoteric history and stuff posts, but I 'd think they still stand as some evidence of the theory. First we have the Acambaro Figurines that depicts dinosaurs and other strange creatures, though of course with it's sparse details, may be are a hoax.
Acambaro-Figurines.jpg
mythical-looking-creatures.jpg

Then we have the infamous Ica Stones that depict humans interacting with dinosaurs and humans doing modern work. I think I don't need to elaborate too much.
ica-stones-dinosaurs.jpg

ica-stones-telescope.jpg

Can't forget the T-Rex Soft Tissue find that is of course, dismissed by the mainstream science article I linked it to. And the 33,500 "Triceratops" horn that was controversial enough to have the discoverer fired for that.
Triceratops-Horn-dinosaurs.jpg
The supposed horn. That's literally the only picture I can find of it.

And finally there are the amber finds of avian dinosaurs (dino-birds basically) encased in amber, and I'd think they are recent instead of millions of years old.
Links Here and Here
piece-of-amber.jpg
This one is from the first article. Can't link pictures from the second article cause of copyright lol.

SUMMARY AND OPINION:
I think that all of these "ancient" fossils are no more than made up ones in order for the mainstream technocrats to maintain the idea of millions of years old evolution and fossilization, or are actually much more recent than we are led to believe (and I do believe in evolution and the natural process of fossilization, but that it happens much quicker through cataclysms). And of course, the 19th and 20th century had fossils as one of their plans to wipe out the true nature of our Earth's past and creatures.
 
Last edited:

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,784
Likes
8,169
#2
I’d go with some being made up, but the majority being more recent. As far as dinos go, definitely nowhere near 65 mln years old. If those dino fossils were that old, they’d be 1/3 of a mile below the surface level. That’s where they get comparable in age fossil fuels from. Some are even deeper.

As far as super fast fossilization goes, we do have examples.

61E0FA97-687B-4F1A-8D1B-E319D467505E.jpeg

“Tourists who visit Cape Leeuwin in Western Australia are astonished at the sight of this waterwheel which has become entombed in solid rock in less than 65 years.“ - source

And then, of course, we have that infamous fossilized foot inside a cowboy boot. No clue as to the authenticity though.

A001B8CD-E5BC-4B11-8D7C-7CC943A64E80.jpeg
"The Limestone Cowboy" - An alleged fossilized leg in a cowboy boot.

LOL: I like how our scientists added a little distinguishing detail in there. Real old stuff is fossilized, and real recent is petrified.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
451
Likes
813
#3
Can I inject here that I hate the term "fossil fuel". In my research, no one has ever described any actual or theoretical method by which organic matter can become petroleum. They HAVE created petroleum from very basic minerals under high heat and pressure. NOT from organic matter, fossilized or otherwise.
 
OP
OP
PrincepAugus

PrincepAugus

Well-known member
Messages
373
Likes
619
#4
Yeah, I know about calcification and petrification. Strange that these things happen quite often and we can see it in real time, yet they're never fitted together with how things can be fossilized. Speaking of which, I remember my trip from the National History Museum of Houston when I was on vacation in Texas last week. I remember a fossil (like an actual fossil supposingly, cause ones that are replicas are open displays while real fossils are behind glass) of a crab displayed that was "25 million years old". It looked like it was covered in plaster and left to dry!

Can I inject here that I hate the term "fossil fuel". In my research, no one has ever described any actual or theoretical method by which organic matter can become petroleum. They HAVE created petroleum from very basic minerals under high heat and pressure. NOT from organic matter, fossilized or otherwise.
Funny you said that, because when I was a child and didn't know about how oil came to be, I always thought it was a natural product of the Earth before learning that it was so called "fossil fuels". Abiotic petrol has been there since forever, yes maybe a few organic oils has been made, but they are localized and super small in area. How do you think we have a massive oil and gas industry with the very advanced technology and logistics used to get them everywhere so commonly when they are supposed to be "limited and rare"?
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
451
Likes
813
#5
Yeah, I know about calcification and petrification. Strange that these things happen quite often and we can see it in real time, yet they're never fitted together with how things can be fossilized. Speaking of which, I remember my trip from the National History Museum of Houston when I was on vacation in Texas last week. I remember a fossil (like an actual fossil supposingly, cause ones that are replicas are open displays while real fossils are behind glass) of a crab displayed that was "25 million years old". It looked like it was covered in plaster and left to dry!


Funny you said that, because when I was a child and didn't know about how oil came to be, I always thought it was a natural product of the Earth before learning that it was so called "fossil fuels". Abiotic petrol has been there since forever, yes maybe a few organic oils has been made, but they are localized and super small in area. How do you think we have a massive oil and gas industry with the very advanced technology and logistics used to get them everywhere so commonly when they are supposed to be "limited and rare"?
Not only that, wells that were "tapped out" and will take 500,000 years to replenish are already delivering fresh crude again less than 50 years later. Oil companies have started reopening old "dead" wells to pump again on the cheap.

Sorry to derail, but I bite my lip every time I hear the term, and this thread seemed as close as we would get.
 

Apollyon

Well-known member
Messages
146
Likes
676
#6

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
375
Likes
1,485
#8
Don't forget the cowboy had a hat!

hat.jpg

Truth is geologists have no clue on how to date fossils. It is all circular. Fossils date the strata which date the fossil.

It always pained me that these OOPARTS are tied to fundamental creationists online.
Painting the picture that you have to be an extremist to question the the science on this.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
733
Likes
1,943
#9
Interesting stories, Apollyon. Few things stood out to me about the hog island petrified man though. Small town, dead guy found that no one recognizes then he's suddenly "readily recognized" AND he just happens to be related to the funeral director, Doughty. More curious to me was why the ocean was creeping inland inundating the town in the first place. The story doesn't mention that aspect.
Pretty cool article about turning dead people to stone.....in the 1700's! I'd never heard of any of these stories. Thanks for sharing!
Also wanted to add that the mad scientists research WASN'T lost-his partner ran off with it but we never heard anymore about it so I'm thinking that he sold that technology and it's still being used today for "fossil" making. Just my conspiratorial mind at work.
 
Last edited:

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,784
Likes
8,169
#10
Yup, I definitely learned new things from the Apollyon's links.

Another thing that stood out was a link to this by the OP:

Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a CSUN official told Armitage, “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!”


Source: Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
733
Likes
1,943
#11
God forbid anyone show that Darwin was wrong. First time my youngest daughter (8 at the time) came home from school talking about having learned about evolution that day I asked her what her opinion was on the matter. She said, "c'mon, people! This isn't Digimon!" Had to LOL at that one.
Evolution within the confines of our genetic blueprint is, of course, possible and demonstrable. Evolution from one species into another is laughable. Millions, even trillions, of tiny mutations and they're ALL beneficial. Having worked as a critical care nurse for a few decades, I've never once seen or even heard of a genetic mutation that was beneficial.
I'm a Christian and not at all threatened by the possibility of evolution but I don't think that's what we're seeing. If anything, I think humanity is experiencing devolution which would conform to the physical laws of entropy. Neanderthals had larger craniums and denser bones. Giants once roamed the earth. Look at humanity now; we're pretty scrawny specimens in comparison.
When you point out the logical fallacies of Darwinian evolution people get butthurt. I don't even try to argue it anymore. "Wallow in your ignorance" is my motto. I've been to Texas and seen the human footprints in the same stratus level of dinosaur prints. There's just too much cultural and archaeological evidence to show that people actually witnessed dinosaurs. Why is that so threatening to accept?
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
451
Likes
813
#12
Yup, I definitely learned new things from the Apollyon's links.

Another thing that stood out was a link to this by the OP:

Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a CSUN official told Armitage, “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!”


Source: Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil
I especially like the part where it says that some other scientist said that this isn't new. T rex bones have soft tissue found, and of course it was preserved for 60M years because.... iron.

Of course, Iron. Why didn't we think of that. It's so obvious.
 

Radal16

Active member
Messages
39
Likes
207
#13
One of the things that has always bothered me about paleontology is how they decide what remains belong together. Very, very few complete skeletons have ever been found so most of what has been presented to us as whole dinosaurs are really just cobbled together bits and pieces that make up fairy tale monsters. That triceratops horn looks just like a rhino horn, for instance.

Wise Up made a comment in one of his YouTube videos that dinosaurs were just birds and that really stuck with me. Take a look at the bipedal dinosaurs like T-Rex and Velociraptor and compare their skeletons to modern flightless birds- they look pretty similar except that the arms of T-Rex and Velociraptor have been articulated wrong. Now I see T-Rex as giant chickens with teeth and tails.

First photo is Archaeopteryx with feathers, second photo is the Black Beauty T-Rex.

800px-Archaeopteryx_lithographica_(Berlin_specimen).jpg Royal_Tyrrell_Black_Beauty.jpg

Adding to the idea that these creatures aren't nearly as old as we've been told: how about this frozen mammoth that was served for dinner in 1951 The Time 250,000-Year-Old Mammoth Was Served For Dinner. Or this 40,000 year old mammoth that had enough fresh DNA to be cloned Fresh Mammoth Carcass from Siberia Holds Many Secrets.

As an aside: might I also point out that Franz Boas, the father of American Anthropology, was a notorious grave robber in the late 19th century?
I'm a Christian and not at all threatened by the possibility of evolution but I don't think that's what we're seeing. If anything, I think humanity is experiencing devolution which would conform to the physical laws of entropy. Neanderthals had larger craniums and denser bones. Giants once roamed the earth. Look at humanity now; we're pretty scrawny specimens in comparison.
I agree with you, but it's not just humans, everything is smaller. Look at how massive all the megafauna were before the last ice age compared to what's alive now. Below is just one example.
1024px-Rhino_sizes.png.838x0_q80.png
 
Last edited:

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
733
Likes
1,943
#15
Archaeologists pieced together a centipede that was 8 (or 10?) feet long. Centipedes could be that big but people (mammals) were only rat sized? Something has happened with our climate/atmosphere/gravity/SOMETHING to have drastically changed the size of all flora and fauna in the not-to- distant past.
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
528
#20
its pretty obvious dinosaurs existed until a while ago, when they went *pft* just like the unicorns and dragons
however i am doubtfull on the authenticity of the ica stones, they look quite primitive and crude when compared to the civilization that existed there
on the topic of impossible fossils, what about that one that shows a shoe footprint that smashed a trilobite?
 

Similar threads

Top