Dinosaurs Are Just a Theory

This isn’t our first visit to the website of radio station WSAU in Wausau, Wisconsin. The last time was a month ago when we wrote Hitler: Racist, Socialist, and … Darwinist?, about a post by someone named Ben Armstrong. They have a bio page for him. He’s a talk radio guy.

Now the same station has a new post by Ben, titled The Myth of Dinosaurs the Reality of Dragons. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Do you realize that dinosaurs are just a theory? A theory that is backed up by very shaky evidence. Most people believe in dinosaurs because they are taught in school about them. Rarely does a school teach the children that dinosaurs are just a theory and are not proven to be fact.

Wowie — dinosaurs are just a theory! Then he says:

The long recorded history of Dragons has been swapped out by the theory of dinosaurs. When did this happen? Well it all started in recent history, 1842 to be exact. Before 1842 everyone referred to these fossilized bones as dragon bones. Did you even know that?

This is amazing! Ben tells us:

One man named Sir Richard Owen created the term dinosaur in 1842. Dinosaur simply means terrible lizard. Understand, no one, in all of world history, believed there were dinosaurs before 1842. Everyone believed in the historical evidence of dragons. That’s because almost every single cultural around the world has historical evidence of dragons.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Historical evidence of dragons! Ben continues:

Is it an interesting that after this term was created, all of a sudden the first dinosaur discovery happens in 1858. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences member, William Foulke excavated the first so-called dinosaur. It was a nearly-complete skeleton, only missing its head. A little fact that indicates that man killed this animal. Only men, when killing an animal, take only the head.

Men killed the dinosaur — or dragon — or whatever it was. Let’s read on:

The skeleton resembles many early drawings of dragons interestingly enough. But, to make the skeleton look bigger when it was on tour, William Foulke stood it up on its hind legs in a T-Rex position. If this skeleton had been found just 17 years earlier, before 1842, it would have been concluded that they were dragon bones. What a difference just a few years can make.

EgadTyrannosaurus rex is a fraud! Another excerpt:

Sir Richard Owen, who created the term dinosaur, was an evolutionist. [Gasp!] Many in the science community at this time we’re trying to disprove what the Bible taught. They wanted to prove Evolution to be true. They found out that many in the scientific community embraced the same goal. Besides, it was a good way to make money. Think of the billions of dollars the dinosaur industry generates today.

Dinosaurs are a gigantic fraud! Here’s more

Many of you are still laughing at this article. That’s probably because you don’t even know what a fossil is. So what exactly is a fossil? It is bone that is turned into rock. There’s actually no possible way to determine the difference between a regular Rock and a fossilized bone. If you were to test a dinosaur bone, it would just be the same as a rock. Fascinating how so many dinosaur bones are found in actual rock bed. How can anyone prove that these scientists didn’t just carve out a bone shape from the rocks?

Aha! All those fossils are fake — as we’ve always suspected!

Ben’s article is long, so we’ll have to skip a lot. This comes from the end:

Here’s what’s really interesting. I can make the case that any dinosaur fossils that they find are simply dragon bones. There are many historical accounts describing different types of dragons. Some have the long necks with the fat body, some are snake like. Some have wings and some do not. European culture documents dragons as fact. Ancient Chinese culture documents dragons as fact. The Bible dragons as fact [sic].

[…]

There is [sic] historical records that Dragons were real, but only theories about Dinosaurs.

So there you are, dear reader. Now you know The Truth.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

29 responses to “Dinosaurs Are Just a Theory

  1. Eric Lipps

    Of course dinosaur bones are dragon bones! Or, rather, dragon bones were dinosaur bones. What were people who already believed in dragons supposed to believe when they dug up giant lizard skeletons?

    Now if only someone could dig up a dino fossil showing evidence of flame jets in the mouth . . . !

    Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences member, William Foulke excavated the first so-called dinosaur. It was a nearly-complete skeleton, only missing its head. A little fact that indicates that man killed this animal. Only men, when killing an animal, take only the head.

    Ad of course it couldn’t be that the head was missing because natural events broke it off the rest of the skeleton and it simply wasn’t found.

    Many of you are still laughing at this article. That’s probably because you don’t even know what a fossil is. So what exactly is a fossil? It is bone that is turned into rock. There’s actually no possible way to determine the difference between a regular Rock and a fossilized bone. If you were to test a dinosaur bone, it would just be the same as a rock. Fascinating how so many dinosaur bones are found in actual rock bed. How can anyone prove that these scientists didn’t just carve out a bone shape from the rocks?

    Well, one could go into details of the fossil’s internal structure, just to take one example. A plain old rock wouldn’t be likely to show evidence of animal-like blood vessels, but fossils often do.

    Oh, and how can one prove “dragon bones” weren’t just carved out of rock? And what about the supposed discovery of soft tissue clinging to dinosaur fossils? Isn’t Mr. Armstrong up on the thrilling discoveries of his fellow creationists?

  2. Michael Fugate

    I wonder why the wings never fossilize?

  3. Where to start? Well, first of all:
    ———-
    > “the first dinosaur discovery
    > happens in 1858.”
    ———–
    Not even close. The first dinosaur bone was published in 1676 by Plot – it was a partial Megalosaurus femur bone.

  4. How sad, truly sad that some people actually think this way.

  5. > “Sir Richard Owen, who created the
    > term dinosaur, was an evolutionist.
    —————-
    Darwin’s book came out a decade-and-a-half after Owen’s coining of the term.

  6. EricL is tha man of smart questions today:

    “how can one prove “dragon bones” weren’t just carved out of rock?”
    Of course you can’t! That’s why Ben A is right!

  7. Alan Conwell

    JSJ, And I love the assertion that scientists were looking to demonstrate evolution and disprove the Bible prior to 1859, pub date of Origins!

  8. > “Many of you are still laughing at this article.
    > That’s probably because you don’t even know
    > what a fossil is.
    ————
    Look in the mirror at someone who doesn’t know what a fossil is.
    ———–
    > So what exactly is a fossil? It is bone that is
    > turned into rock.
    ————
    Wrong wrong wrong wrong.
    ————
    In early days, a fossil was anything dug from the ground. Paleontologists (who are a far, far cry from a radio host) define a fossil as any evidence of ancient life, meaning Pleistocene or older. It can be a bone, a shell, a tooth, a piece of wood, a leaf, a cell, a burrow, a track. Fossils can be preserved as unaltered parts (NOT turned into rock).
    —————-
    > There’s actually no possible way to determine
    > the difference between a regular Rock and a
    > fossilized bone.
    —————
    There’s no such thing as a “regular rock”. Distinguishing dinosaur bones from matrix is easy peasy. Let me guess – you’ve never seen one, right? I’ll bet you don’t even know that vertebrate bone has an unmistakeable spongy texture, hmm?
    ———–
    > How can anyone prove that these scientists
    > didn’t just carve out a bone shape from the
    > rocks?
    ————-
    People have been faking fossils for a very long time. The Moroccans and Chinese are the top fossil fakers today. Seeing that the fossil is carved from stone is how one tells it’s fake.

  9. Why doesn’t he challenge Ham to a debate?
    Would Ham be afraid to debate him?

  10. > “European culture documents dragons as fact.”
    —————–
    Nope nope nope.

    If you’re referring to the “Saint George and the dragon” story, it’s based on an ignorant misidentification of a large varanid lizard.

    I wonder if this guy is serious, or if he’s just lying for kicks. Either way, spreading this sort of clap-trap is harmful.

  11. Well, that explains why all paleontologists have to go through sculpting classes for several years….

  12. Like most creationists he totally ignores the dating issue.

    That one issue alone disproves the recent earth, a global flood during historic times, and man existing at the same time as dinosaurs.

    No wonder they have to ignore it! It disproves most everything they claim!

  13. Dave Luckett

    More generally, what an awesome verification of Poe’s Law!: “There is no creationist position so insane that one or more creationists will not believe it”, with its corollary: “There is no way to distinguish between an actual creationist position and a satirical caricature”.

  14. Do you realize that dinosaurs are just a theory?

    Another creationist problem: creationists generally equate “theory” with wild-ass guess. Wrongly, of course.

    As used in science, a theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts, an explanation which has withstood a number of tests, and which makes successful predictions.

    By trying to undercut both the scientific method and the theory of evolution, creationists hope to advance their religious beliefs to an equivalent level–at least in the minds of those who know no better.

    Just another example of how creationists are anti-science.

  15. When I first got interested in creationism, I was expecting that this would be the most popular opinion.
    Why do most creationists accept so much of science? If they were to take their motto “How do you know, were you there?” seriously, they would be sceptical about fossils being the remains of once-living creatures. And accepting “micro-evolution” within “kinds”?! Why do so many accept heliocentrism, contrary to such more clear Scripture than anything about fixity of forms of life (and, I dare say, without their own knowlege of the evidence)?
    Of course, this one gets a bit of his history wrong. There were lots of fossils known for a long time, and a debate about their meaning. There were many men of faith who were convinced by the evidence that there were the remains of animals different from any around today. Remember Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686)? On the other hand, there is the Bible-denying Thomas Jefferson who, in the early 19th century, had trouble accepting extinction.

  16. Talk Radio Guy Ben Armstrong:
    “How can anyone prove that these scientists didn’t just carve out a bone shape from the rocks?”

    How can anyone prove that someone didn’t just carve this guy’s head from a rock? This is the all-time, grand champion, biggest piece of stupid that any of us shall ever have the displeasure of reading.

    (Off to the laundry room to get the bleach to disinfect my computer.)

  17. The Orchardist

    Surely this guy deserves a Buffoon Award? He has written the most incredibly stupid rubbish I ever recall reading. If he was trying his hardest to turn people away from religion, he could do no better!

  18. The Orchardist says: “Surely this guy deserves a Buffoon Award?”

    No, the award requires some degree of political or academic prominence. One solitary voice, with no influence whatsoever, doesn’t qualify.

  19. I am known for making bold predictions and saying the things others are afraid to say.

    Wow, amazing how of you are looking at this clown’s musings the wrong way. This is not about creationism, it’s about the lame mainstream media, so called science experts and their fancy theory of evolution. You can almost see the tiny Alt-right gears turning in this clown’s head. Look at another title from his blog postings, “Trump vs the Media on the Schoolyard explained”

    So much of this anti-science rhetoric is political motivated and they all live within their alternative right wing bubble originally fed by a steady diet of Fox News and now Breitbart, Drudge and the Sinclair Group.

    This isn’t a debate about science and religion, its now an outright propaganda war with an enemy that readily lies to their advantage. So don’t waste your time with scholarly debate, these folks just feel it! Call this for what it is, stupid, outrageous lies used to feed to their growing political audience of troglodytes.

  20. EJB, what have troglodytes done to you that you compare them with those who swallow such stupid lies?!

  21. EJB, what have troglodytes done to you that you compare them with those who swallow such stupid lies?!

    You’re right, I extend my apologies to all troglodytes, both past and present.

  22. Mark Germano

    I can’t wait to tell my kids that the little dinosaur that made a nest under our porch to lay her eggs is just a theory.

  23. Mark, is it a raptor?

  24. Coyote, creationists don’t typically ignore radiometric dating, they just operate under the assumption that it’s already been disproven, citing the usual shoddy evidence for that conclusion, if pressed to do so.

  25. That is, those parameters of the laws of physics which make dating work, and which are now fine-tuned for life, the YEC assume that those parameters were grossly out of tune for life in the past.

  26. I’m okay with dinosaurs as dragons. It’s long been my view that happening upon large fossils, especially of carnivorous animals, is the obvious origin of dragon myths, and a reason why dragons occur reasonably consistently in cultures worldwide. Until it was understood that those bones represented long extinct creatures, it would have been disconcerting to the locals to think that such a beast might be living in the immediate area.

    It is extremely rare to find complete skeletons of anything, so piecing together bones from different creatures to make one beast is likely to contribute to the varying improbable appearances of dragons through history. Many dinos also have very birdlike feet, which may have contributed to the idea that they must have also had wings.

    Soooo, dinosaurs begat dragons, not the other way around.

  27. These sentences are from Ben Armstrong’s self-written bio:

    “At the age of four, I was recording himself pretending to be on the radio.”
    “I was recording himself”??

    “I have been married for over 20 years and has four wonderful kids.”

    Another very strange grammatical error. These errors, plus the ones in his dinosaur post, would indicate Ben does not proofread his writing. Perhaps Ben is blind — he’s wearing very dark glasses in his bio photo, which doesn’t mean anything by itself, but if he is blind it would explain his lack of rudimentary knowledge of fossils. For instance, knowing the visual difference between a piece of rock and a fossilized dinosaur bone.

    “My wife, Kolleen, homeschools all of my children.”

    No surprise there.

  28. There is so much wrong here that one doesn’t know where to begin.
    – Owen named dinosaurs after 3 genera: Iguanodon, Megalosaurus and Hyelosaurus, from fossil skeletons, including heads.
    – Fossils were known even before Owen’s birth(1804), but not recognised as such. The first dino described was Megalosaurus, in 1824, by Buckland. Iguanodon was found earlier, but only described later
    – Owen may have been an ‘evolutionist’, we don’t really know, but he definitely opposed Darwin’s ‘transmutation’,
    – Fossil bones are recognised because they are different from the surrounding rock,
    – The ‘billion dollar industry’ of fossils did not exist in Owen’s time, and although there is a thriving and sometimes deplorable trade going on, I doubt it is a billion dollar industry even now (but I might be mistaken there).
    – A missing head on a fossil does not indicate human decapitation, completely spurious.
    – There are no reliable sources of ‘dragons’ slain. No serious documentation of fire spitting, nor of any tetrapod with an extra pair of limbs (serving as wings).
    – Dinosaurs are dated more than 65 million years old, well before any human (or dragon, for that matter).
    etc etc.
    The man is a loony at best, or, more probably, a despicable liar.

  29. @retiredsciguy

    “These errors, plus the ones in his dinosaur post, would indicate Ben does not proofread his writing.”

    No doubt.

    Further, these errors seem to me to be evidence that someone else wrote the bio for him, in the third person, and Armstrong (or someone) converted it to a first person narrative, perhaps to make it seem a bit more homey and sincere, or maybe just to pretend ownership.

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s