First of all, I’m not going to say that dinosaurs did not exist. However, I’m also not going to perpetuate that dinosaurs did exist. I am merely going to point out that there are more scientific anomalies in the theory of dinosaurs than there are evidence that dinosaurs did exist.

In fact, one of the biggest reasons to doubt the theory is that in fact there is no scientific evidence. “But wait”, you say, “what about the museums, all the bones uncovered by archaeologists, and carbon dating”? I will get to that in the following top ten list.

10 An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically

The Flaws: Bear with me for a moment and assume for a second that evolution is true and that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. Now consider that the reason we don't see any is because at one point the Earth was hit by a giant asteroid that obliterated the Earth and caused all dinosaurs to become extinct simultaneously. There are several problems with such a theory.



Firstly, for an event of this magnitude to have occurred to wipe out all the dinosaurs (except deep-sea dinosaurs, which I will get to later), it would have to wipe out all the rest of life, too. There are major problems with this.



1) If evolution were to be true and this event occurred, then it would mean that evolution would have to have started over from scratch from that point. This throws a big wrench into evolutionary theory. It would have been better if you were trying to support evolution to not even try to support the idea of dinosaurs.



2) Not to mention that all humans would also have been wiped out, so let's not even get into the red herring fallacies that try to argue how dinosaurs and humans existed simultaneously.



3) If such an event were to occur, it would mean that there would be archaeological evidence of a period of time, perhaps many millions of years, in which no life existed on Earth except maybe some surviving cave dwellers and deep sea creatures. However, no such archaeological evidence exists.



Secondly, with the probability of evolution occurring being so astronomically high that the possibility is not only 0 but far in the negative (not even going to get into this in this post), then the possibility that evolution could start life over, in the exact same way, from the exact same biological principles, a second time is just so astronomically absurd it's just not even funny anymore.



We're talking literally there are not enough numbers in the universe, times itself, to the power of itself, times infinity, to support how many zeroes would be required on the end of "one in x" chance of happening. In fact, the English language (or any language) does not even have a conception, not to mention a word, to describe how astronomically slim utterly ridiculous the chances of this occurring are. In other words, it suffices to say that this is simply impossible to have occurred.

9 There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived

The Flaws: Yes, elephants exist, and elephants are large. However, an elephant, which is a fraction of the size of a Brontosaurus, has to eat for 18 hours every day in order to survive. However, even in ancient times, there was still only 24 hours within each 24 hour period (basic logic).



Since an elephant can't survive without eating 18 hours per day every day, and a Brontosaurus was supposedly 5 to 10 times larger than an elephant, then a brontosaurus would have to eat for around 90 to 180 hours per day. Yes, you read that right, and it's not a typo. It is logically impossible to eat for 90 hours per 24 hour day.



Even if it scarfed down food much quicker, it still comes nowhere close to having enough time to sustain itself. If it did absolutely nothing but eat and sleep, it still wouldn't even come close. Even if it never slept but only ate, still it would not even come close. That means that it could never even reach full size. That would be impossible. It makes no sense for a creature which could never get larger than a baby to even exist in the first place.



However, this isn't even the real problem with the existence of giant plant-eating creatures. The real problem is that there wouldn't even be enough food for them to eat (not to mention enough fresh water to drink).



Take the example of the Australian rabbit. This tiny animal in relatively large numbers has wreaked havoc on the local environment. Take the following excerpt: The rapid spread of the rabbit led to the destruction of large tracts of vegetation, leading to the extinction of many plant species. Loss of vegetation leads to soil erosion as the exposed soil is washed or blown away, removing valuable soil nutrients required for new plants to develop. This soil is typically deposited in waterways, causing siltation and destroying aquatic ecosystems (Rabbit Problems, n.d.). Consider the effect of just these tiny creatures. Now consider the daily consumption of one single plant-eating dinosaur. At 13 tons, a Mamenchisaurus, similar to a Brontosaurus, would have to have eaten 1,150 pounds of vegetation per day. This is probably equivalent to about 10,000 rabbits, maybe more (that number is just an educated guess).



If a few thousand rabbits can destroy entire ecosystems, then consider what billions of rabbits would do. There would be nothing left, for anyone. All plants would go extinct. That's what would happen if these massive dinosaurs roamed the Earth. There would not be any plants left to eat. Most plant species would go extinct. Yes, elephants exist, and elephants are large. However, an elephant, which is a fraction of the size of a Brontosaurus, has to eat for 18 hours every day in order to survive. However, even in ancient times, there was still only 24 hours within each 24 hour period (basic logic).Since an elephant can't survive without eating 18 hours per day every day, and a Brontosaurus was supposedly 5 to 10 times larger than an elephant, then a brontosaurus would have to eat for around 90 to 180 hours per day. Yes, you read that right, and it's not a typo. It is logically impossible to eat for 90 hours per 24 hour day.Even if it scarfed down food much quicker, it still comes nowhere close to having enough time to sustain itself. If it did absolutely nothing but eat and sleep, it still wouldn't even come close. Even if it never slept but only ate, still it would not even come close. That means that it could never even reach full size. That would be impossible. It makes no sense for a creature which could never get larger than a baby to even exist in the first place.However, this isn't even the real problem with the existence of giant plant-eating creatures. The real problem is that there wouldn't even be enough food for them to eat (not to mention enough fresh water to drink).Take the example of the Australian rabbit. This tiny animal in relatively large numbers has wreaked havoc on the local environment. Take the following excerpt:Consider the effect of just these tiny creatures. Now consider the daily consumption of one single plant-eating dinosaur. At 13 tons, a Mamenchisaurus, similar to a Brontosaurus, would have to have eaten 1,150 pounds of vegetation per day. This is probably equivalent to about 10,000 rabbits, maybe more (that number is just an educated guess).If a few thousand rabbits can destroy entire ecosystems, then consider what billions of rabbits would do. There would be nothing left, for anyone. All plants would go extinct. That's what would happen if these massive dinosaurs roamed the Earth. There would not be any plants left to eat. Most plant species would go extinct.

8 No one is allowed to question the Dinosaur Orthodoxy without extremely harsh criticism

The Flaws: The perpetuation of Dinosaur theory, just like Evolutionary Theory and the



This is a big red flag. Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented.



Also remember that very, very few people, probably a total of mere thousands of people out of the entire world population, have ever done any real hands-on research into any of the scientific areas to promote evolution, dinosaurs, etc. As a result, you must understand that most people who accept evolution are only believing it by faith, because they have not done the research for themselves. Reading something in a textbook does not count as research.



If someone decides to write that men came from aliens (such as Scientology to some extent), you can't believe it just because everyone else does without researching for yourself. However, most people do not have the time, energy, money, or aptitude to do any real hands-on research for themselves, so they just believe what they read in their high school and college text books without questioning it. This is a serious issue; but not only that, you must accept that as a result, these people are believing in evolution by having faith (in textbooks), which is a religious belief, not a scientific belief.



However, keep in mind that despite the perception that most people believe in evolution and subsequent theories, that is untrue. In fact, most of the world is not atheistic; in fact as much as 80% to 90% of the world's population believes in some form of God.



The only reason it seems like more than 10% of the world believes in evolution is because evolutionists have a hold in the media and educational system. In fact, as much as 90% of professors and educational instructors do not actually believe in evolution, but for fear of their job and career they are forced to teach it. It's just that the 10% or less of people who hold an Atheistic view on the world tend to speak louder than everyone else. The perpetuation of Dinosaur theory, just like Evolutionary Theory and the Big Bang Theory , has become more of a religion, an orthodoxy, than a science. People are expected not to question it, no matter what, at the risk of losing their job, breaking their careers, losing friends, being shunned by family, and being ridiculed by anyone who refuses to think for themselves. If anyone attempts to present scientific evidence contrary to the popularly held view, it is immediately dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or a "crazy religionist".This is a big red flag. Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented.Also remember that very, very few people, probably a total of mere thousands of people out of the entire world population, have ever done any real hands-on research into any of the scientific areas to promote evolution, dinosaurs, etc. As a result, you must understand that most people who accept evolution are only believing it by, because they have not done the research for themselves. Reading something in a textbook does not count as research.If someone decides to write that men came from aliens (such as Scientology to some extent), you can't believe it just because everyone else does without researching for yourself. However, most people do not have the time, energy, money, or aptitude to do any real hands-on research for themselves, so they just believe what they read in their high school and college text books without questioning it. This is a serious issue; but not only that, you must accept that as a result, these people are believing in evolution by, which is a religious belief, not a scientific belief.However, keep in mind that despite the perception that most people believe in evolution and subsequent theories, that is untrue. In fact, most of the world is not atheistic; in fact as much as 80% to 90% of the world's population believes in some form of God.The only reason it seems like more than 10% of the world believes in evolution is because evolutionists have a hold in the media and educational system. In fact, as much as 90% of professors and educational instructors do not actually believe in evolution, but for fear of their job and career they are forced to teach it. It's just that the 10% or less of people who hold an Atheistic view on the world tend to speak louder than everyone else.

7 Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics

The Flaws: The laws of physics and gravity prevents the existence of creatures as massive as dinosaurs. There have been many attempts to justify this, but the fact remains that without changing the laws of physics, it is not possible.



In fact, some even tried to change the laws of physics by suggesting that gravity was weaker in the prehistoric era. However, this notion is pseudoscience. Anyone who knows anything about physics can tell you that such a notion is pure fiction.



Due to the principles of gravity, mass, and the limitations of muscular anatomy in any life form, it would not be possible for any animal weighing more than 20,803 pounds to be able to lift its own weight (Holden, 1994). However, the Brontosaurus is supposed to weigh over 70,000 pounds, and other so-called sauropods are supposed to be many times larger than that.



Then there is the issue of neck size - a long necked animal of that size would not even be able to lift its neck. Additionally, their blood pressure would be way too high to be able to live. Their heart would literally explode. For reference, a giraffe has a long neck, and even at its relatively tiny size in comparison to sauropods, a giraffe is at essentially the peak of blood pressure that is possible to live, having a higher blood pressure than any other animal.



It almost makes you wonder if someone is sitting in an office someone with a sinister look on his face and tapping the tips of his fingers together like a mad scientist, thinking, "heh heh hehhh ... I wonder how many laws of physics I can break and still no one notices, heh heh hehhh ..."



Then there is the issue with the laws of physics relating to flight. The giant pterosaurs could not possibly have flown, because their wing span would have to be far, far larger in order to support their massive weight. It simply was not possible. Whoever invented the giant pterosaur clearly wasn't very familiar with the laws of physics and flight.



It may have had something to do with the fact that humans didn't fully understand the principles surrounding flight until the early 1900s**. When you are making up a mythological creature, it can be difficult to make it fit within the laws of physics when you don't even know the laws of physics yet.



** Note: The Wright Brothers first achieved flight in 1903; the purpose of this argument excludes earlier flying machines like hot air balloons as early as 1783 which used different physics to achieve flight.

6 Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in the backyards

The Flaws: If dinosaurs roamed the Earth and were everywhere, and these creatures were massive, gigantic beasts, then there should be overwhelming evidence everywhere we look. You would go gardening and find ten or twenty giant bones every time you tried to plant some seeds.



People would be building houses out of these bones because there was so many of them. Who needs bricks when you have fossils? Your kids would go play outside and occasionally come back with a petrified dinosaur bone. However, there has never once been an instance in which someone accidentally found a dinosaur bone.



(Pictured is a child holding a large dog bone.)

5 Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years

The Flaws: Even evolutionary scientists accept that carbon dating is entirely ineffective in measuring time. Not only is it ineffective with relatively short periods of time, but the entire theory is based off a premise that essentially says that the maximum amount of years it can be used for is 40,000 years.



This means that using radiocarbon dating to say that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago is like using a thermometer to measure the height of Mount Everest. The only people you will fool is the people who don't know what a thermometer is.



According to Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, an evolutionary geneticist from Stanford University, who wrote the book, "Genes, People, and Languages" which was published in 2000, The most crucial dates in modern human evolution are unfortunately beyond the range of the radiocarbon method, which has a limit of about 40,000 years (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000, p. 61) Additionally, evolutionist Richard Dawkins, author of the famous book, "The Blind Watchmaker", had this to say about radiocarbon dating: Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable.



It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years (Dawkins, 1986, p. 226). So even the top evolutionary scientists in the world affirm that radiocarbon dating is impossible to use to determine the age or existence of dinosaurs. Even evolutionary scientists accept that carbon dating is entirely ineffective in measuring time. Not only is it ineffective with relatively short periods of time, but the entire theory is based off a premise that essentially says that the maximum amount of years it can be used for is 40,000 years.This means that using radiocarbon dating to say that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago is like using a thermometer to measure the height of Mount Everest. The only people you will fool is the people who don't know what a thermometer is.According to Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, an evolutionary geneticist from Stanford University, who wrote the book, "Genes, People, and Languages" which was published in 2000,Additionally, evolutionist Richard Dawkins, author of the famous book, "The Blind Watchmaker", had this to say about radiocarbon dating:So even the top evolutionary scientists in the world affirm that radiocarbon dating is impossible to use to determine the age or existence of dinosaurs.

4 Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s

The Flaws: For a set of creatures that are supposed to have been so pervasive, so massive, and so populous to have never been seen in any culture's mythology at any time in known history (not even cave paintings), defies logic if the creatures had in fact existed.



Instead, the mythology of dinosaurs did not spring up until around the 1800s. Since then, and especially since the 1900s when Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (published in 1859) book became more popular, dinosaurs have become a pervasive part of society. Today, we see these prehistoric creatures in children's books, novels, movies, television, and every form of media.



However, before the 1800s, Dinosaurs were completely absent from mythology. We don't see it in Greek, Roman, or any other sort of mythology. Some historians claim that some ancient Chinese found a dinosaur fossil, but the evidence for this is merely anecdotal (in other words, there is no real evidence for this). You can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. And that is beside the point, as I will explain below.



If, as they say, dinosaurs roamed the Earth long ago, giant, massive creatures that defied the imagination, dinosaurs would then become the focal point of all of historical mythology. Not anecdotal evidence of something that might or might not be a dinosaur, here and there.



After all, it has been proven in the last 100 years since dinosaurs were introduced to us that once people caught onto this idea it became wildly famous. However, if it were true, it would have been wildly famous tens of thousands of years ago too. But it wasn't. Not a single absolute reference can be found.



Absolute reference is the key factor. Not a reference that might be a large whale or elephant ("leviathan" and "behemoth" in the Bible). If such massive creatures existed, there wouldn't be one or two ambiguous references here and there. No, if it were true then you would hear very specifically about giant massive creatures with giant heads, ferocious teeth, and tiny arms (Tyrannosaurus Rex), gentle giant long-necked creatures who were many, many times bigger than even the largest known creatures such as elephants (Brontosaurus), and super-fast and intelligent creatures with 9 inch claws and teeth and pack-hunting mentalities (Velociraptor).



Remember, not ambiguous references one or two times that might be something else. There would have to be thousands, even millions of references that are very specific. For example, it's not like we think that references to a dragon might be references to say, a large bird. No, mythology is very clear about dragons being large, reptilian, flying, fire-breathing creatures; and dragons are extremely pervasive throughout mythology.



Don't you think that if dinosaurs existed, myth-writers such as Homer would have capitalized on this in the "Iliad and the Odyssey" and other famous mythological writings and great stories? No, instead you find many mythical creatures like Cyclops, mermaids, and talking horses. But no references to dinosaurs.



We see absolutely no specific references to dinosaurs in mythology. Not one, single absolute reference. If history has taught us anything, fantasy creatures, even fictional ones, capture the imagination and become pervasive throughout mythology. Leprechauns, trolls, even dragons are a few of the famous creatures. But no mythology even referencing any dinosaurs. Not a single one. Not at any time in history.



Not a single time in history before the 1800s was any dinosaur specifically mentioned; but if it were true that they really existed, then many, many dinosaurs would be referenced countless times. Thus, historical evidence strongly suggests that the existence of dinosaurs is highly improbable.

3 A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one

The Flaws: You go to a museum and you see dinosaur skeletons. At least, you think you do. You see, those dinosaurs are amalgams of various things ranging from chicken bones, to random bones, to straight plaster casts. Not even the teeth are real. Various bones have been found that have been claimed to be a part of a dinosaur.



However, no dinosaur skeleton has ever been found. The only few that have been, have long proved to be a hoax. As a result, the only way to make a dinosaur skeleton for a museum is to, quite literally make it. That is, they have to create what they think it might look like by filling in 99% of the bones with other things to make what they think the whole thing would look like.



However, it is most probable that the few bones that have been found belonged to other animals. Thus, what you see in a museum is nothing more than an artist's rendition of what they think those dinosaurs could look like if they existed. If they put in a skeleton of a dragon, you would probably believe that too, especially if they told you in your class science book that dragons existed and could even talk English.

2 There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around

The Flaws: Presupposition is a philosophical term which means that you create the evidence based on an assumed premise. In philosophy, any presupposed arguments are usually dismissed.



To be more clear, the idea of dinosaurs was first imagined, and then scientists attempted to search for evidence that they existed. However, this is not how science works. This is anti-science, or pseudo-science. The scientific method dictates that in order to assume a valid scientific notion, it must first be discovered, and only then create the theories based only on the scientific fact.



Instead, however, dinosaurs were first imagined, and then entire skeletons were designed by creative artists; and then after they had what they thought might exist, they went out and tried to find evidence that their theory existed. They would find a bone, and think, "well, this might be similar to what I imagined a dinosaur bone would look like", while holding a cow or whale bone.



It is like drawing a picture of an imaginary creature that you think might be able to exist and then trying to find the imaginary creature in real life. It's not going to happen unless you make it happen. That's exactly what happened with Dinosaur theory. Could dinosaurs exist? Maybe. But is it probable? Not based on science as we know it.

1 Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean

The Flaws: An extinction-level event, such as a giant comet crashing into Earth, or perhaps a disease that wiped out all the dinosaurs, would only have impacted the land dinosaurs and shallow-water dinosaurs, not the ones in the deep ocean. If such an event occurred as the reason for why dinosaurs "went extinct", it would not have applied to the deep ocean dinosaurs which would still be there today.



We would see these dinosaurs of all sizes - gigantic, mid-sized, and tiny - all the time through deep-water trawls, fishing nets, occasionally washing up on shore, the occasional scuba diver eaten and submarine destroyed, and we would even see photographic evidence taken by deep-water submersibles. However, none of this evidence is present which means that most certainly an extinction-level event could not be the reason we don't see any dinosaurs on Earth. The only plausible solution is that they could not have scientifically existed.

So, is the theory of Dinosaurs a hoax? Perhaps. Or is it true, that giant dinosaurs roamed the Earth in prehistoric days? Maybe. However, is it likely that these mega creatures called dinosaurs existed? Not based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.

The only thing that is certain is that it is impossible to know for sure, without time travel. However, should our children be taught theories as if they were fact? This we can most certainly say for a fact: absolutely not, no more than you would tell them that dragons, leprechauns, or trolls exist. In fact, based on historical evidence, it is more likely that dragons and trolls existed at some point than it is that dinosaurs ever did.

See also: Top 10 Surprising Scientific Facts About Dinosaurs | Ten Truths About Dinosaur Theory That May Surprise You

References: Anderson, J. F., Hall-Martin, A., & Russell, D. A. (1985). Long-Bone Circumference and Weight in Mammals, Birds, and Dinosaurs. Journal of Zoology, London (A) 207: 53-61. Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi. (2000). Genes, Peoples, and Languages. New York: North Point Press. Dawkins, Richard. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton. DinoBuzz. (n.d.). What Killed The Dinosaurs: The Invalid Hypothesis. Retrieved from https://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extincthypo.html. Holden, Ted. (1994). Dinosaurs and the Gravity Problem. Retrieved from https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_dinosaurs01.htm James , Frances C. & Pourtless IV, John A. (2009). Cladistics and the Origins of Birds: A Review and Two New Analyses. Ornithological Monographs, 66:1-78. Lyons, Eric. (2007). Evolution and Carbon-14 Dating. Retrieved from https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=307&topic=59. NPR News. (2012, December 9). Forget Extinct: The Brontosaurus Never Even Existed. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/forget-extinct-the-brontosaurus-never-even-existed. Oregon State University. (2009, June 9). Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm. Rabbit Problems in Australia. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.animalcontrol.com.au/rabbit.htm Wozney, David. (2010, September 14). Dinosaurs: Science Or Science Fiction. Retrieved from https://loveforlife.com.au/content/10/09/14/dinosaur-deception-dinosaurs-never-existed-dinosaur-fossils-are-hoax-dinosaurs-scie

Share this: