Animation Source Forums

I also believe in evolution, but what can I do? There's lots of religious people in this site, and I can't simply start saying things like "synapsids are ancestors of mammals" or "flight evolved four times in the animal kingdom"! I have to say it is quite frustrating, but if I do that, I will get trouble. But, you know, I'm also of the "believe and let believe" theory; after all, I have other things to do rather than offend people.

Actually, the prevailing theory is that griffin legends began with the skull of a Protoceratops. And Archeopteryx was found to be a hoax because, A: only nine "fossils" were ever found, B: only two of them had feathers, C: the "stone" didn't chemically match up with the areas they were found in (it was eventually discovered that the "stone" was artificial), and D: a strange glob was discovered on one of the "fossils." At first glance it looked like a gumwad, but it turned out to be a glob of leftover cement (not normal cement, but still cement) that had fallen onto the "fossil" and been left there by a careless hoaxer.

Look, thre's a lot of feathered dinosaurs beside Archeopteryx, like Rahonavis and Microraptor, and not all of them are hoaxes (except for Archeoraptor).

That's another common misconception. Most of the images of feathered dinosaurs (such as National Geographic's images of feathered T-Rex) have no real fossil evidence. Besides, riddle me this: was Archeopteryx a hoax before it was exposed, or only afterward?

As for Archeopteryx, you maybe right. But that doesn't mean that the other feathered dinosaurs were fakes; I even touched some feathered dinosaur fossils, and I recognise when a fossil is a fake.

P.S.: I really touched dinosaur fossils; some were on a display around here, and you could touch them!

Would I be correct in assuming that you are not a professional paleontologist? (may be spelling it wrong, it's been a while)

Some of them we, as I recognised them. But there were a few that real, because it was an exposition of fossils from Liaoning, China.

Did you see my question?

I’ve posted in this thread ages ago but I came back to state why most skeletons in museums are fake and why there aren’t too many around.
So let’s start with the later, now why aren’t there to many around? So an animal dies 65 millions years ago it takes a very lucky chance that the bones are preserved because as we all know things don’t last forever and even bones are broken down especially after millions of years let alone more then 65 million. Also the continents had been moving throughout the age of the dinosaurs uplifting fossils that were once in oceans high up into the mountains and covering them with volcanic ash from mountain building and tectonic activity. Also the extinction of the dinosaurs has been mostly agreed to be caused by a huge meteorite impact, anyone seen deep impact? Imagine that times 1000 or even more, now any animals living in basically the same continent as that impact would have been completely destroyed as in nothing left whist around the world a global winter would have killed most larger animals (ie the dinosaurs) before ash and a build up in volcanic activity would have done the rest.
So why do you think archaeologists get so excited when they find some good bones for study? Because they are hard to find in good condition let alone entire skeletons of the entire animal. So yes in museums most bones are fake because the real ones are to priceless to just leave lying around to get damaged.

On the topic of feathered dinosaurs all I'm saying is this quote I found,

I don't think they could fake that many. A few of The Dino species are faked though.

The only ones I know of are Archeopteryx and Brontosaurus.

They claim they found something bigger than our Large Fake Dino friend Brontosaurus. I wonder if they faked it.

There are a number of dinosaurs bigger than Brontosaurus (or Apatosaurus), and I don't think they're very likely to be hoaxes. There's Brachiosaurus, Supersaurus, Ultrasaurus, and Seismosaurus.


Well, the man who discovered "Brontosaurus" found an incomplete skeleton. To be specific, the head was missing. More interested in making a name for himself than in accuracy, he added a skull found miles away and called hie creature "Brontosaurus." It was eventually discovered that the skeleton was a type of Diploducus (a particular group of sauropods), whereas the skull belonged to a dinosaur that, apart from being a sauropod, wasn't even close (I forget the exact species). It was, in essence, the Piltdown Man of dinosaurs.