Dinosaur denialism

The divine comedy Creationism

Running gags

Biblical literalism Young/Old Earth Intelligent design Creation scientists

Jokes aside

Creationism and social history Plate tectonics List of transitional forms History of the Earth

Blooper reel

Scientific storkism Way of the Master Your Origins Matter Argument from beauty

Evolutionism debunkers

Frank Tipler Roy Moore Michele Bachmann Chuck Colson v - t - e

Fiction over fact Pseudohistory

How it didn't happen

Dendera lamp Alternate historical chronology Presentism Goddess movement Hwandan Gogi Jack the Ripper Klerksdorp spheres Deadliest Warrior Juan Móricz Sigurd Wettenhovi-Aspa Le Livre des Secrets Trahis Putinism v - t - e

Dinosaur denialism (or dino denial as a nice consonance) refers to mostly a fringe subset of the fundamentalist young Earth creationist movement that purports that prehistoric dinosaurs did not exist and are simply a fabrication of the 19^th century (their definition of "dinosaur" is probably not informed enough to include birds) backed up by pseudo-palentological claims. Conspiracy theories usually supplement their arguments, with a big overlap from the conspiracy theories from evolution denialism. This is not to be confused with the pseudohistory that creationists push by having these dinosaurs coexist with humans in their stories, although that is another form of denialism. It's considered unhinged, even by other creationists, who otherwise want to include dinosaurs in their teachings to try to appeal to kids, such as with Ken Ham's including dinosaurs in his projects. Hence, it's not much of an organized movement, and most claims are derived from blogs and forum posts.

A large reason that these creationists believe this is not from a lack of evidence, but from ideology, a personal dislike of evolution, and their idea of morality clouding their perception of reality. Oftentimes, they bemoan how kids learning about dinosaurs sets a bad example for behavior or something.^[2][3]

Claims[edit]

"It's corrupting our children!"[edit]

One example of this stance on this came to surface as a Mumsnet Facebook post that claims the following:^[2]

I'm really concerned about dinosaurs, and I think something needs to be done. The science behind them is pretty flimsy, and I for one do not want my children being taught lies.^{[note 1]} Did you know that nobody had even heard of dinosaurs before the 1800s, when they were invented by curio-hungry Victorians?

Charles Darwin's later theory of evolution entirely disproved dinosaurs, yet the dinosaur lie was twisted and adapted to try to make it fit. Any proper look at the facts will reveal that dinosaurs simply never existed.

Aside from the educational aspect, dinosaurs are a very bad example for children. At my children's school, several children were left in tears after one of their classmates (who had evidently been exposed to dinosaurs), became bestially-minded and ran around the classroom roaring and pretending to be a dinosaur. Then he bit three children on the face. One poor girl has been left with a severely dented nose and the whole class was left traumatised by this horrible display.

Nothing about dinosaurs is suitable for children, from their total lack of family values through to their non-existence from any serious scientific point of view.

Recently my sister foolishly gave my two youngest some dinosaurs^[sic] toys for Christmas. After telling her to get out of my house I burnt the dinosaurs. My children were delighted because they know that dinosaurs are evil. I am fortunate that my family has been very supportive, and has disowned my children's former aunt.

Please, do what you can to get dinosaurs taken off the curriculum. Our school has been recently presented with a 214-signature petition, and following that and our recent protest the headmaster has said that he will take it the governors.^[sic] We are lucky that he is so sympathetic to our cause, but I fear that others may not be.

If you would like to lend your support to our campaign, we have a Facebook group where we spread facts and research about the dinosaur myth. Hope to see you there! :-)

These are a lot of stunningly idiotic arguments. For instance, "the science behind them is pretty flimsy" is simply incorrect, as there are literally hundreds of thousands of fossils pertaining to dinosaurs identified all around the world, in many forms from bones to footprints to coprolites, and there are estimates of total species of dinosaurs ranging in the hundreds. To dismiss this all would either be based on bullshit or expose a severe flaw in the way paleontologists identify the remains or a spectacularly extraordinary flaw in the way we understand the basics of something like radiometric dating. The rest of the argument is not actually trying to support the claims, but more of an ideological rant on how dinosaurs are not suitable for class — even though existing animals like tigers and bears, or even mythological animals like dragons, can also inspire kids to roughhouse.

"Just an invention by curio-hungry Victorians"[edit]

Others are under mistaken impression that dinosaurs were simply not known until the 19^th century (see earlier post on the "curio-hungry Victorians").

One creationist David P. Wozney, from an essay "Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction" published in 1997, believes dinosaurs never existed:^[4]

When children go to a dinosaur museum, are the displays they see displays of science or displays of art and science fiction? Are we being deceived and brainwashed at an early age into believing a dinosaur myth? Deep probing questions need to be asked of the entire "dinosaur industry".

This article will discuss the possibility that there may have been an ongoing effort since the earliest dinosaur "discoveries" to plant, mix and match bones of various animals, such as crocodiles, alligators, iguanas, giraffes, elephants, cattle, kangaroos, ostriches, emus, dolphins, whales, rhinoceroses, etc. to construct and create a new man-made concept prehistoric animal called "dinosaurs".

Where bones from existing animals are not satisfactory for deception purposes, plaster substitutes may be manufactured and used. Some material similar or superior to plasticine clay or plaster of Paris would be suitable. Molds may also be employed.

The essay later argues from incredulity and ignorance of how fossils are formed that "only within the last 150 years and in huge unusual concentrated quantities going against the laws of nature and probability." Where is he expecting fossils to form? Most fossils are found in river beds, but other locations are good spots for fossils such as volcanic events that cover entire groups of animals or landslides suddenly burying the animals.

Why were there no discoveries by native Americans in all the years previous when they roamed the North American continent? 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..".

[...]

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

This is not true, as dinosaur remains have been found by humans throughout thousands of years of history, but just were not identified. For instance, in China, people identified the remains as "oracle bones" and used them for medicine, while people in Europe believed they were remains from biblical or mythological creatures. Archaeologists found dinosaur remains displayed in temples in Ancient Greece, while Native Americans such as the Sioux, the Crows, and the Blackfeet, the Aztec, the Inca, the Iroquois, the Navajos, the Apaches, the Cheyennes, and the Pawnees discovered fossils; entire books are written about these such as Adrienne Mayor's Fossil Legends of the First Americans. The reason there were "no discoveries by 'native Americans'" is that their traditions tend to be passed down orally and they were systemically wiped by white settlers in a centuries-long process, so their stories and records were severely diminished and buried (notice the United States' curriculum typically does not cover Native Americans discovering dinosaur remains, and we often have large gaps pertaining to the American natural world where we learn what descendants of settlers studied but not what the several Native American tribes studied). In fact, dinosaur and other megafauna remains as well as existing predators may have inspired the widespread, worldwide occurrence of dragons in long-surviving mythology.^[5]

A dino denier poster in a forum also seriously believes that paleontologists simply cut into rock and fabricated the bones.^[1] Again, this shows a severe misunderstanding of how fossils form, and obviously, this person could easily volunteer for a paleontological dig to see exactly how fossils are excavated, but that would be too much work.

Fossils, then, are basically bones that have turned into a sort of rock. They are rocks that mimic the form of a bone that is now long gone. Many of the dino bones on display in museums are bone-shaped rocks essentially. The problem I have with this is that, according to many cable TV “science” shows I have watched over the years, these dinosaur fossils are often found embedded in rock. So, we're talking about digging out rocks imbedded in rock and we must trust that those who prepared these fossils for display have correctly carved away the non-bone rock from the real bone rock. But, in our hoax-filled world of fake science, doesn't this rock-in-rock situation make it rather easy for creative interpretations of what the animal really looked like? And, once a particular animal is “approved” by the gods of the scientific community, wouldn't all subsequent representations of that same animal have to conform with that standard?

"It's a deception by scientists to steer us away from God"[edit]

David P. Wozney is a known pusher of this conspiracy theory.^[4][6] He believes that "the dinosaur industry needs to be investigated and questions need to be asked" and that it is possibly "a fabrication of nineteenth and twentieth century people possibly under Satanic control pursuing an evolutionary and anti-Bible and anti-Christian agenda." (Just in case you wondered whether the guy still has some of his marbles left.)

What would be the motivation for such a deceptive endeavor? Obvious motivations include trying to prove evolution, trying to disprove or cast doubt on the Christian Bible and the existence of the Christian God, and trying to disprove the “young-earth theory”. Yes, there are major political and religious ramifications.

The dinosaur concept could imply that if God exists, he may have tinkered with his idea of dinosaurs for awhile, then perhaps discarded or became tired of this creation and then went on to create man. The presented dinosaur historical timeline could suggest an imperfect God who came up with the idea of man as an afterthought, thus demoting the biblical idea that God created man in His own image. Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.^{[note 2]}

Highly rewarding financial and economic benefits to museums, educational and research organizations, university departments of paleontology, discoverers and owners of dinosaur bones, and the book, television, movie and media industries may cause sufficient motivation for ridiculing of open questioning and for suppression of honest investigation.

And here's another argument from incredulity.

Discoveries and excavations seem not to be made by disinterested people, such as farmers, ranchers, hikers, outdoor recreationists, but rather by people with vested interests, such as paleontologists, scientists, university professors, museum organization personnel, who were intentionally looking for dinosaur bones or who have studied dinosaurs previously. The finds are often made during special dinosaur-bone hunting trips and expeditions by these people to far-away regions already inhabited and explored.

This seems highly implausible.

Paleontologists are underpaid in their field and not all of them can even find jobs related to their field. Additionally, some of the most well-known fossil discoveries were made by Christians such as Gideon Mantell, Rev. William Buckland, Mary Anning, and Richard Owen. Finally, if there is a potentially good excavation site, teams are hired to do the dirty work, not just random disinterested people (at least the word "disinterested" is applied correctly to mean "without motive"). This person also has a false impression that fossils can simply be found just lying on the bedside or digging a few rocks when it's more likely they're buried and in a remote location, requiring dedicated teams of experts as well as tools to excavate and retrieve the fossils. So, of course those that have the means and knowledge to discover fossils will discover more fossils than those without.

Bones[edit]

¨Survival of an original bone from 65 million years ago would be unlikely!¨[edit]

This is true, but irrelevant. Numerous fossilized bones that have undergone various mineralization processes exist and elegantly display the original structure. The cellular matrix of a calcified dinosaur bone is still visible when cut crosswise. It is exactly like modern bone. The protein involved is most similar to the most primitive lines of birds, or close birds and crocodylians, according to study of these fragmented remains of proteins that have been extracted from rare dinosaur fossils in recent years.

¨Bone begins to break down and become soil again after 1000 years!¨[edit]

Or before, since many creatures in nature work to decompose bones. Naturally, to assert this you're disregarding the mechanisms that lead to fossils again (and there is the assuming that fossils are bones; they are not, as the bone is mostly replaced by rock). Bone does not always biodegrade. Some bones are preserved from the regular processes that would break down organic elements into soil when they are buried under dirt or volcanic ash. However, we don't even need to go to that far to refute the assertion because we have human mummies that are thousands of years old, complete with bones as well as fully preserved animals in the tar pits. The bones don't appear to be decomposing into the ground. Are they fictional?

Also fossils aren't just bones. We have evidence of dinosaurs from coprolites, tracks, amber samples, burrows, nests, and so on. We also have fossils of microorganisms. Sometimes, soft tissue ends up being preserved.

"They couldn't have possibly gotten that big!"[edit]

Dinosaur denialists often argue that the size of dinosaurs is unrealistic, claiming that animals cannot grow beyond a certain size due to the surface area to mass ratio and heat dissipation issues. However, the following points demonstrate that these arguments are false:

Heat dissipation[edit]

The argument that dinosaurs would have overheated and died due to their size and mass is based on several misconceptions and ignores the various ways in which dinosaurs adapted to cope with heat.

First, the claim that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles is outdated and no longer supported by scientific evidence. While some dinosaurs were indeed cold-blooded, others were warm-blooded or had a combination of both traits, a condition known as mesothermy. Mesothermic animals, such as modern-day leatherback turtles and great white sharks, can regulate their body temperatures to some extent, allowing them to operate in a wider range of environmental conditions. The evidence for mesothermy in dinosaurs comes from the presence of structures such as bony canals and grooves that allowed for increased blood flow and heat exchange, which would have been unnecessary in strictly cold-blooded animals.

The argument assumes that dinosaurs would have generated too much heat due to their size and mass, but this overlooks the fact that many dinosaurs had large surface area to volume ratios. This means that, despite their size, their bodies had relatively more surface area exposed to the air or water than smaller animals of similar shape, allowing for increased heat dissipation. Additionally, many dinosaurs had thin-walled bones, which would have also aided in heat exchange. Large size actually helps animals to retain heat, as a larger body volume provides a larger surface area for heat exchange. This is why large animals such as elephants and whales are able to live in hot climates without overheating. In fact, some researchers believe that the large size of dinosaurs may have been an adaptation to the warm climate of the Mesozoic era, allowing them to remain active during times when smaller animals would have been forced to take shelter.

The argument ignores the various behavioral strategies that dinosaurs likely employed to cope with heat. For example, many dinosaurs may have sought out shade during the hottest parts of the day or migrated to cooler areas during certain seasons. Some dinosaurs may have also employed evaporative cooling through panting or sweating, as evidenced by the presence of specialized respiratory structures in some dinosaur fossils.

Furthermore, the claim that dinosaurs evolved in a time when the earth was much warmer due to excess CO2 is also misguided. While there were periods of high atmospheric CO2 in the past, such as during the Mesozoic era when dinosaurs flourished, these periods were also marked by significant fluctuations in temperature and climate. Dinosaurs evolved a range of physiological and behavioral adaptations to cope with these fluctuations and to thrive in a variety of environments.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]}

See also[edit]

• Dinosaur Adventure Land — an example of creationists who do acknowledge dinosaurs
• Paleontology — dinosaur deniers think they know better than everyone that studies this field
• Pseudoarchaeology
• Kent Hovind — at least believes dinosaurs existed but thinks they existed 6000 years ago and were created along with humans

References[edit]

Notes[edit]