dinosaurs never existed. The dinosaur fossils were created by paleontologist scam artists.

[idav]

Your in denial. There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from going to any location right now and digging them up yourself. Nothings manufactured my friend. It's all there first hand. Impossible to say It's all manufactured. Complete bollocks.

QFT

 

[RoaringSilence]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/21/asia/china-dinosaur-eggs-found/

 

[Laika]

I for one am keeping an open mind on this

Most alleged ancient fossils are found near the surface of earth, and are dated by the age of the rocks near where they are found. If a modern-day animal was to die and its remains found in the same location, would it be dated the same age of the alleged ancient fossil?

The dinosaur industry should be investigated and questions need to be asked. I am unaware of any evidence or reason for absolutely believing dinosaurs ever were alive on earth.

During the nineteenth century a new world view of evolution was being pursued by then influential people such as Darwin and Marx. During this era of thought the first dinosaur discoveries were made. Were these discoveries "made" to try to make up for inadequacies in the fossil record for the theory of evolution?

So far as I know neither Karl Marx nor Fredrich Engels used the existence of Dinosaurs to support their theories even if a version of evolution reinforced their worldview. The Marxist worldview, dialectical materialism, is near-universally rejected amongst contemporary scientists and so does not influence current scientific debates in the west.

[Speaking As someone who is interested in it, the fact is that the majority of soviet era science has not been translated into English and that causes serious issues in understanding the relationship between soviet ideology and science even from a historians perspective. It is somewhat simplified by the insistence on scientists ideological orthodoxy by repeating verbatim parts of texts by Lenin and Engels on science which are available in English if you know where to look. Even as part of the wests understanding of Soviet history, resources on it are negligible and expensive as the emphasis is on treating communism as primarily a political and not an intellectual phenomena.]

However, One of the major failings of Marxist views on evolution was its reliance on neolemarkianism (that acquired traits could be inherited). On the subject of human evolution they said that apes engaged in labour processes changed the shape of the hand and meant we relied on our hind legs. Similar views were also expressed on how language and speech changed human vocal chords. This conflicts with recent discoveries in genetics and Marxists reliance on neolemarkianism culminated in the ideologically motivated Lysenko distortion in soviet biology. For this reason they probably wouldn't be looking at the fossil record as it's possible they thought evolution was an observable property within the lifetime of an organism (and was the basis of lysenkos views that wheat species could adapt in the course of generations with unfulfilled promises of increased agricultural productivity).

Lamarck was important however in discussions regarding the "transmutation of species" in which one species changed into another as a radical materialist philosophy that preceded Darwins theory of natural selection. Darwin did use Lemarkian ideas of inheritance but these were a reflection of the intellectual climate of his time and do not affect the validity of evolution overall (only that certain ideas have been surpassed and improved on since the 19th century).

Looking through the Wikipedia article on transmutation of species, Robert Chambers "vestiges of a natural history of creation" did bring up the fossil record but it was considered intellectually very poor for applying a theory of progress to biology on highly speculative grounds. This work was however important in setting the precedent for how Darwins work was recieved by the public because it conflicted with views of mans superiority over animals with man being descended from apes.

So No, you can't blame this one on Marx.

 

[Purusha]

Your in denial. There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from going to any location right now and digging them up yourself. Nothings manufactured my friend. It's all there first hand. Impossible to say It's all manufactured. Complete bollocks.

Is it a fact or opinion ?

 

[Purusha]

So far as I know neither Karl Marx nor Fredrich Engels used the existence of Dinosaurs to support their theories even if a version of evolution reinforced their worldview. The Marxist worldview, dialectical materialism, is near-universally rejected amongst contemporary scientists and so does not influence current scientific debates in the west.

[Speaking As someone who is interested in it, the fact is that the majority of soviet era science has not been translated into English and that causes serious issues in understanding the relationship between soviet ideology and science even from a historians perspective. It is somewhat simplified by the insistence on scientists ideological orthodoxy by repeating verbatim parts of texts by Lenin and Engels on science which are available in English if you know where to look. Even as part of the wests understanding of Soviet history, resources on it are negligible and expensive as the emphasis is on treating communism as primarily a political and not an intellectual phenomena.]

However, One of the major failings of Marxist views on evolution was its reliance on neolemarkianism (that acquired traits could be inherited). On the subject of human evolution they said that apes engaged in labour processes changed the shape of the hand and meant we relied on our hind legs. Similar views were also expressed on how language and speech changed human vocal chords. This conflicts with recent discoveries in genetics and Marxists reliance on neolemarkianism culminated in the ideologically motivated Lysenko distortion in soviet biology. For this reason they probably wouldn't be looking at the fossil record as it's possible they thought evolution was an observable property within the lifetime of an organism (and was the basis of lysenkos views that wheat species could adapt in the course of generations with unfulfilled promises of increased agricultural productivity).

Lamarck was important however in discussions regarding the "transmutation of species" in which one species changed into another as a radical materialist philosophy that preceded Darwins theory of natural selection. Darwin did use Lemarkian ideas of inheritance but these were a reflection of the intellectual climate of his time and do not affect the validity of evolution overall (only that certain ideas have been surpassed and improved on since the 19th century).

Looking through the Wikipedia article on transmutation of species, Robert Chambers "vestiges of a natural history of creation" did bring up the fossil record but it was considered intellectually very poor for applying a theory of progress to biology on highly speculative grounds. This work was however important in setting the precedent for how Darwins work was recieved by the public because it conflicted with views of mans superiority over animals with man being descended from apes.

So No, you can't blame this one on Marx.

Nice information but I do not believe in evolution because it has not been proved. I dug the below info from a scholar.

According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock."


Fossilization

Margaret J. Helder continues to explain: "Under what circumstances did whole organisms remain intact long enough to be fossilized? In most cases it seems, these victims were rapidly buried in great loads of sediment, which quickly hardened into rock. Not only did these situations require catastrophic burial but also the sediment involved had to be very fine grained in order for such exquisite preservation of detail to come about. Geologists generally interpret silt beds as the result of fine particles settling gradually out of still water. If that had happened in these instances, the corpses would have decayed long before burial and lithification (turning to rock) could occur."

The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium phosphate, or calcium hydroxylapatite, in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil?

Another alleged mode of preservation is permineralization, whereby porous bone structures are supposed to become more dense by the deposition of mineral matter by groundwater. The more porous the bone, the more susceptible it is to destruction. In Speed and Conditions of Fossilization, we learn that "secondary mineralization, remineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of defleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species." What percentage of land animals' bodies die near water and then fall into that water? "Hypersaline environments in which carbonates are precipitating favor bone remineralization and secondary mineralization. Saline environments also are good, but there the processes are slower." Are not dinosaurs supposed to have lived in a relatively non-saline fresh water environment? Inducing mineralization under ideal laboratory conditions is one matter, but completely different than real-world natural processes that tend to dissolve, not precipitate, bone mineral. Once the internal part of a decaying bone fills up with saline water from a sea, I am unaware of any reason why it should be a preferred location for mineral precipitation compared to the rest of the sea bottom.

Fossilization is also discusssed at Evolution versus Creation, where we learn that "... there are no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago ... when a fish dies, it doesn't sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil, it merely decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. Even today, there is hardly a trace of the millions of buffalo that once existed, but were slaughtered all over the plains just a couple of generations ago. (Some herds were big enough to cover a whole state)."

 

[Laika]

Nice information but I do not believe in evolution because it has not been proved. I dug the below info from a scholar.

According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock."


Fossilization

Margaret J. Helder continues to explain: "Under what circumstances did whole organisms remain intact long enough to be fossilized? In most cases it seems, these victims were rapidly buried in great loads of sediment, which quickly hardened into rock. Not only did these situations require catastrophic burial but also the sediment involved had to be very fine grained in order for such exquisite preservation of detail to come about. Geologists generally interpret silt beds as the result of fine particles settling gradually out of still water. If that had happened in these instances, the corpses would have decayed long before burial and lithification (turning to rock) could occur."

The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium phosphate, or calcium hydroxylapatite, in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil?

Another alleged mode of preservation is permineralization, whereby porous bone structures are supposed to become more dense by the deposition of mineral matter by groundwater. The more porous the bone, the more susceptible it is to destruction. In Speed and Conditions of Fossilization, we learn that "secondary mineralization, remineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of defleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species." What percentage of land animals' bodies die near water and then fall into that water? "Hypersaline environments in which carbonates are precipitating favor bone remineralization and secondary mineralization. Saline environments also are good, but there the processes are slower." Are not dinosaurs supposed to have lived in a relatively non-saline fresh water environment? Inducing mineralization under ideal laboratory conditions is one matter, but completely different than real-world natural processes that tend to dissolve, not precipitate, bone mineral. Once the internal part of a decaying bone fills up with saline water from a sea, I am unaware of any reason why it should be a preferred location for mineral precipitation compared to the rest of the sea bottom.

Fossilization is also discusssed at Evolution versus Creation, where we learn that "... there are no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago ... when a fish dies, it doesn't sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil, it merely decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. Even today, there is hardly a trace of the millions of buffalo that once existed, but were slaughtered all over the plains just a couple of generations ago. (Some herds were big enough to cover a whole state)."

My reply was intended to deal with the idea that the Marxist worldview was somehow involved in forging the fossil record and dinosaur bones. (It wasn't- but these things circulate in public opinion such as "cultural Marxism" and the Frankfurt school conspiracy theory.)

I am not qualified to really debate the fossil record itself but it would appear you are using a definition of proof that is very high. Human beings cannot claim to absolute knowledge in science (as we might do with religion) because of the limits of our instruments to make measurements and observations. So there is uncertainty in all scientific theories. Uncertainty however does not falsify these theories but shows there incompleteness as ideas corresponding to the objective world.

The simplest example to grasp is that Newtonian mechanics couldn't explain the orbit of mercury. This was one of the uncertainties and anomalies that eventually led to einsteins theory of relativity (mercury's orbit doesn't fit into newtons mechanics based on the law of gravity as he understood it because space-time is stretched by the gravitational pull of the sun). Despite this, Newtonian mechanics is still basically used to calculate how to send man to the moon or satellites into orbit of earth and other planets).

I'm guessing but the process of fossilisation is slow and the timescales involved in the "rapid" deposition of sediment will be measured in a time scale larger than a human lifetime. Saying that fossils are not being formed "now" strikes me as a Mis-understanding of the time scales involved and compress it to a human life span rather than geological scales of time measured in millions rather than hundreds of years.

P.s I'm not a creationist but I am a sceptic of stuff like the Big Bang and quantum mechanics because it is inconsistent with atheistic-materialism. [That comes up in the references to the law of increasing disorder (entropy I think) and atoms possessing "intelligence" to know where to go in the process of fossilisation. It's a reference to "quantum mysticism" that the improbabilistic nature of quantum mechanics can be interpreted as meaning atoms possess agency and a capacity for choice.] so my answer may not fairly represent the scientific consensus and may be as "heretical" as your view.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It must be a scam even the Chinese have never found a dragon fossil. The Irish find gnomes regularly but never leprechaun fossils.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is it a fact or opinion ?

You think it's an opinion that a person can go out and find and dig up fossils ?

Your kidding. Right?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nice information but I do not believe in evolution because it has not been proved. I dug the below info from a scholar.

According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock."


Fossilization

Margaret J. Helder continues to explain: "Under what circumstances did whole organisms remain intact long enough to be fossilized? In most cases it seems, these victims were rapidly buried in great loads of sediment, which quickly hardened into rock. Not only did these situations require catastrophic burial but also the sediment involved had to be very fine grained in order for such exquisite preservation of detail to come about. Geologists generally interpret silt beds as the result of fine particles settling gradually out of still water. If that had happened in these instances, the corpses would have decayed long before burial and lithification (turning to rock) could occur."

The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium phosphate, or calcium hydroxylapatite, in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil?

Another alleged mode of preservation is permineralization, whereby porous bone structures are supposed to become more dense by the deposition of mineral matter by groundwater. The more porous the bone, the more susceptible it is to destruction. In Speed and Conditions of Fossilization, we learn that "secondary mineralization, remineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of defleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species." What percentage of land animals' bodies die near water and then fall into that water? "Hypersaline environments in which carbonates are precipitating favor bone remineralization and secondary mineralization. Saline environments also are good, but there the processes are slower." Are not dinosaurs supposed to have lived in a relatively non-saline fresh water environment? Inducing mineralization under ideal laboratory conditions is one matter, but completely different than real-world natural processes that tend to dissolve, not precipitate, bone mineral. Once the internal part of a decaying bone fills up with saline water from a sea, I am unaware of any reason why it should be a preferred location for mineral precipitation compared to the rest of the sea bottom.

Fossilization is also discusssed at Evolution versus Creation, where we learn that "... there are no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago ... when a fish dies, it doesn't sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil, it merely decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. Even today, there is hardly a trace of the millions of buffalo that once existed, but were slaughtered all over the plains just a couple of generations ago. (Some herds were big enough to cover a whole state)."

Impressive title.

"Dr" Margret Header. "PhD"

But for some strange elusive reason that I can't understand, for the life of me, simply can't seem to find any of her university listings that verifies her credentials or even a published abstract would be useful. Can you help?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I know the real issue is going to be carbon dating. You feel that can't give us anything close to an accurate date? You realize carbon dating is just one method and not even the best. What are your views on radiometric dating which go back to billions of years and give the age of any rock. Your claim is that paleontologists are planting fossils in rocks dated to certain periods. That is quite the conspiracy theory.

True.

Take a look at them all

Name of Method

Age Range of Application Material Dated Methodology


Radiocarbon


1 - 70,000 years
Organic material such as bones, wood, charcoal, shells
Radioactive decay of 14C in organic matter after removal from bioshpere
K-Ar dating 1,000 - billion of years
Potassium-bearing minerals and glasses
Radioactive decay of 40K in rocks and minerals


Uranium-Lead


10,000 - billion of years
Uranium-bearing minerals
Radioactive decay of uranium to lead via two separate decay chains


Uranium series


1,000 - 500,000 years
Uranium-bearing minerals, corals, shells, teeth, CaCO3
Radioactive decay of 234U to 230Th


Fission track


1,000 - billion of years
Uranium-bearing minerals and glasses
Measurement of damage tracks in glass and minerals from the radioactive decay of 238U

Luminescence (optically or thermally stimulated)

1,000 - 1,000,000 years
Quartz, feldspar, stone tools, pottery
Burial or heating age based on the accumulation of radiation-induced damage to electron sitting in mineral lattices


Electron Spin Resonance (ESR)


1,000 - 3,000,000 years
Uranium-bearing materials in which uranium has been absorbed from outside sources
Burial age based on abundance of radiation-induced paramagnetic centers in mineral lattices


Cosmogenic Nuclides


1,000 - 5,000,000 years
Typically quartz or olivine from volcanic or sedimentary rocks
Radioactive decay of cosmic-ray generated nuclides in surficial environments

Magnetostratigraphy


20,000 - billion of years
Sedimentary and volcanic rocks
Measurement of ancient polarity of the earth's magnetic field recorded in a stratigraphic succession


Tephrochronology


100 - ........

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Look, I'm not sure if all dinosaurs are myths but the skeletons you see across the British museum for example or other museums across the western world do not contain actual bones. They are plaster casts made of parts of bones found around the world and then extrapolated in what peopl...I mean scientists think these creatures would look like.

 

[Wu Wei]

 

[Riverwolf]

@superdestructionyou , dinosaurs did exist, and furthermore, they still do.

 

[YmirGF]

@superdestructionyou , dinosaurs did exist, and furthermore, they still do.

One is outside my window as I type.... cute little bugger too. A red Rufous.

 

[Riverwolf]

One is outside my window as I type.... cute little bugger too. A red Rufous.

D'aww! LOOKATTHELITTLEDINOSAUR!!! :3

 

[Valjean]

their are not one million of different dinosaur fossils . Dinosaur fossil replicas can be made easily with a mold.

so much for your plants fossils. They can be created also.

No, replicas of fossils can be molded, the cellular structure and microanatomy can't. Telling a fossil from a block of concrete ain't rocket science.

 

[fantome profane]

One is outside my window as I type.... cute little bugger too. A red Rufous.

Looks angry. I wonder if some pigs just stole its eggs.

 

[Milton Platt]

yes. Do you need further explanation. Paleontologists claim that dinosaur and prehistoric animals bones transformed into a sandstone rock sediment skeleton BUT THAT IS virtually impossible as bones can not turn into sandstone. If it were possible than paleontologists would be able to transform a bone into a sandstone fossil using technology and chemicals but they can not. The only way to produce a sandstone rock sediment copy of a skeleton is to use a mold and than pour in wet sand and cement which would produce a sandstone fossil or sandstone skeleton.

The idea that bone can turn into rock is an outrageous claim but the evidence that you can produce a rock sediment skeleton using wet sand and cement after pouring it into a skeleton mold MAKES more sense.

Fossilized bones are not made of sandstone. No scientist has ever made that claim. Stop being a ******* and read some science books.

Fossils of hard mineral parts (like bones

and teeth) were formed as follows:

• Some animals
  
  were quickly buried after their death (by sinking in mud, being buried in a sand storm, etc.).
• Over time, more and more sediment covered the remains.
• The parts of the animals that didn't rot (usually the harder parts likes bones and teeth) were encased in the newly-formed sediment.
• In the right circumstances (no scavengers, quick burial, not much weathering), parts of the animal turned into fossils over time.
• After a long time, the chemicals in the buried animals' bodies underwent a series of changes. As the bone slowly decayed, water infused with minerals seeped into the bone and replaced the chemicals in the bone with rock-like minerals. The process of fossilization involves the dissolving and replacement of the original minerals in the object with other minerals (and/or permineralization, the filling up of spaces in fossils with minerals, and/or recrystallization in which a mineral crystal changes its form).
• This process results in a heavy, rock-like copy of the original object - a fossil. The fossil has the same shape as the original object, but is chemically more like a rock! Some of the original hydroxy-apatite (a major bone consitiuent) remains, although it is saturated with silica (rock).

Here's a flow chart of fossil formation:

There are six ways that organisms can turn into fossils, including:

• unaltered preservation (like insects or plant parts trapped in amber, a hardened form of tree sap)
• permineralization=petrification (in which rock-like minerals seep in slowly and replace the original organic tissues with silica, calcite or pyrite, forming a rock-like fossil - can preserve hard and soft parts - most bone and wood fossils are permineralized)
• replacement (An organism's hard parts dissolve and are replaced by other minerals, like calcite, silica, pyrite, or iron)
• carbonization=coalification (in which only the carbon remains in the specimen - other elements, like hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are removed)
• recrystallization (hard parts either revert to more stable minerals or small crystals turn into larger crystals)
• authigenic preservation (molds and casts of organisms that have been destroyed or dissolved).

 

[superdestructionyou]

Fossilized bones are not made of sandstone. No scientist has ever made that claim. Stop being a ******* and read some science books.

Fossils of hard mineral parts (like bones

and teeth) were formed as follows:

• Some animals
  
  were quickly buried after their death (by sinking in mud, being buried in a sand storm, etc.).
• Over time, more and more sediment covered the remains.
• The parts of the animals that didn't rot (usually the harder parts likes bones and teeth) were encased in the newly-formed sediment.
• In the right circumstances (no scavengers, quick burial, not much weathering), parts of the animal turned into fossils over time.
• After a long time, the chemicals in the buried animals' bodies underwent a series of changes. As the bone slowly decayed, water infused with minerals seeped into the bone and replaced the chemicals in the bone with rock-like minerals. The process of fossilization involves the dissolving and replacement of the original minerals in the object with other minerals (and/or permineralization, the filling up of spaces in fossils with minerals, and/or recrystallization in which a mineral crystal changes its form).
• This process results in a heavy, rock-like copy of the original object - a fossil. The fossil has the same shape as the original object, but is chemically more like a rock! Some of the original hydroxy-apatite (a major bone consitiuent) remains, although it is saturated with silica (rock).

Here's a flow chart of fossil formation:

There are six ways that organisms can turn into fossils, including:

• unaltered preservation (like insects or plant parts trapped in amber, a hardened form of tree sap)
• permineralization=petrification (in which rock-like minerals seep in slowly and replace the original organic tissues with silica, calcite or pyrite, forming a rock-like fossil - can preserve hard and soft parts - most bone and wood fossils are permineralized)
• replacement (An organism's hard parts dissolve and are replaced by other minerals, like calcite, silica, pyrite, or iron)
• carbonization=coalification (in which only the carbon remains in the specimen - other elements, like hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are removed)
• recrystallization (hard parts either revert to more stable minerals or small crystals turn into larger crystals)
• authigenic preservation (molds and casts of organisms that have been destroyed or dissolved).

" Some of the original hydroxy-apatite (a major bone consitiuent) remains" no it does not. Dinosaur fossils are sandstone rock sediments. Why are you trying to explain though I already added a image of the fozzilation process.

 

[Riverwolf]

Paleontologists claim that dinosaur and prehistoric animals bones transformed into a sandstone rock sediment skeleton

No they don't.