That's still a fossil, even though they call it a mummy because its well preserved supposedly. What is interesting is that it would have had to have formed within 6000 years, recasting the dates for dinosaurs.
That is if they even existed. Nobody has yet been able to fight my iron glad proof that they are indeed a hoax.
To recap:
- Unsustainable Size Would Require Decimation of Nearby Environment and Ecosystem
- No Signs of Stress on Bones
- An event that would kill off all dinosaurs would have destroyed ALL life on earth. This would be clear to see in evidence.
- An extinction event like an Asteroid would not have killed off under-water dinosaurs
- Apparently only God can kill dinosaurs
- A full dinosaur skeleton has never been found
- No evolutionary record of the supposed evolution into birds
- Why is it that we have no dinosaur records from research before the 1800s?
- Why have no native peoples discovered dinosaurs and incorporated them into their worldview?
- Why is paleontology the only profession with such widespread hoaxes?
- Why the disproportionate amount of headless dinofauxs in the 1800s Bone Wars and Rushes? Why were the ones they did find later found out to be faked?
- The Bodies of Many dinosaurs make no sense with our knowledge of gravity
John, you maintain a decent form of discussion in style, but if you draw your arguments from a Creationist principle, you haven't done anything to expose an alleged hoax on dinosaurs.
Your points:
1 The lush Jurassic and Cretaceous could have well maintained a working ecosystem. How do you know how many plants were available to the herbivores? Many plant fossils have been found of those epochs. Do you claim they are (also) fake?
2 for such a claim to be true, you need to have studied a great number of dino bones. Have you?
3 why would that be needed? Earlier extinction events didn't kill off all life on Earth either. The K-T event didn't kill other reptiles as crocodiles, turtles, lizards are found before and after, up to today.
4 another claim, unfounded and contradicting your own point 3. A meteorite of 10 km diameter causes an enormous change in climate, oceanic ecosystems, light, thus plant growth and that changes the complete food chain. Marine reptiles would be just as affected as terrestrial ones
5 God has no place in a serious natural scientific discussion. He could exist or not, it is not relevant for the study of geology.
6 the fossilisation of remains is a process that doesn't happen all the time and depends on environmental characteristics. Finding complete fossils is rare anyway, the larger the animal size, the harder it will be. Let's assume a full-sized mammoth hasn't been found until today. Does that mean mammoths didn't exist?
7 the fossil record is fragmented and biased because of 6; certain times and depositional environments provide more fossils than others. The characteristics of birds and those of certain genera of dinos seem to show similarities. It's not Sauropoda that evolved into birds.
8 before the 1800s people had little interest in geology. Let alone dug up many sedimentary formations to find fossils. Before the late 20th century shale gas was not explored. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
9 that is demonstrably untrue and even worse; many hoaxes were perpetrated for power and financial gain. The dinos are not among that. What would be the purpose of hoaxing giant reptiles?
10 that certain fossils are faked of course is bad and undesired. The problem for your stance is;
EVERY dinosaur fossil must be fake. If 1 is real, it's not a hoax. Paintings can be and have been falsified. Does that mean paintings are fake? No.
11 that is projecting the present on the past. There might have been other gravitational circumstances 80 million years ago. We simply don't know. What has been analysed from proxy data is that CO2 and O2 levels were much higher in the Cretaceous and Jurassic. More O2 means more oxygen to the metabolism and muscular movement. More CO2 means better plant growth.
For your claim to be true:
1 - every dinosaur fossil needs to either be faked (made of plaster or other materials) or taken from another animal
1a - to suppose this position means that every paleontologist analysing those fossils either is completely blind or stupid not being able to recognise a plaster fake or every one of them is part of some evil grand conspiracy to.. do what? Perpetrate lizards? Why??
1b - then which animals lived in those epochs if it weren't dinosaurs? What is your alternative explanation?
2 - how does it work when dino fossils are found together with ammonites or plants or mammals or fish or any other fossil? Is then the dino fake, but the other fossils real? Or how do you tie that together?
3 - if you claim dinosaurs were not around, how was the ecosystem of the Jurassic and Cretaceous arranged? Which animals were around to eat all those plants? Which marine animals ate all those ammonites? What species do you propose roamed the Earth and hunted the small mammals that were around?
4 - you claim that dinos are fake because museums expose plaster copies and additional interpreted bones that have never been found. They do that for educational purposes; to complete the puzzle and be able to show something. Nobody is claiming that was exactly what they looked like and interpretations of shapes, sizes and habitat change with new finds, as decent science works.
In all the years I have seen this "hoax" presented, I've never seen a good set of arguments that aren't based on an unbearable ground position; creationism. That is belief, not science.
Many hoaxes are around and pushed still today, no doubt about that. But strong arguments for a dino hoax I stil have to see.