They say even under perfect conditions, it couldn’t be possible, yet somehow, paleontologists have unearthed a preserved dinosaur foot deep in the heart of the Gobi Desert in Southern Mongolia.
“I wouldn’t believe any reports if I hadn’t been there,” said paleontologist Dr. Greg Hudkins, who was one of several experts sent on the dig. “But I saw it, and I felt it. I’ve analyzed it. That thing is the foot of a real dinosaur.”
Scientists have released one photo of what they’re calling the “find that will define this century.” After an already successful day of digging, the group reportedly came across a small, warm pocket beneath the rocks. They believe the beast had its leg stuck in the wet pocket around 70 million years ago. However, how it stayed preserved for that long is a question no one is capable of answering just yet.
“We’re not sure how that could be,” Hudkins said. “But I know what this is. It’s the foot of some theropod, a raptor-like creature, perhaps. But much bigger.”
Hudkins maintains that there are thousands of dinosaur genera that have not been discovered, so no immediate label is not alarming and a mystery that may take time. The larger question will still be how the foot with skin, bones and tissue could have made it this far. The group will reportedly take on these questions in separate groups. They will publish their findings, including verification that the foot is absolutely real, in an upcoming issue of the journal Science.
Scientists are also beginning to extrapolate clues about other dinosaurs from the photographic evidence provided.
RELATED ARTICLES
- WEF Scientists Warn Next Pandemic Will 'Kill Billions'
- Spike Protein Makes Women 'Infertile', Scientists Warn
- Scientists Have Recreated World's Deadliest Flu Virus
- More than 70% of Coronavirus Deaths in Italy are Men, Scientists Baffled
- Scientists Discover HIV-Like 'Mutation' Which Makes Coronavirus Extremely Infectious
Loading ...
http://hauntedskeptic.com/preserved-dinosaur-foot-a-hoax/
Evolution is an applied science, so you’re going to have to somehow undo cloning, observable virus and bacteria mutations, cancer and its research, and a host of other replicable DNA applications with your little creation myth.
Bahaha, evolution has nothing to do with those things. Evolution may use those things as possible methods, but evolution has nothing to do with the application. It makes more sense for a recent Creation to have a reserved dinosaur skin and tissue of thousands of years, than millions.
Hollow Earth… Iron Skies….Coming race, it belongs Hitlers T rex.
Look at images of the feet of only fairly recently extinct large Land Birds Like the Moa, the Elephant Bird or any number of known or even yet unknown species of Land Bird. The structure of the foot is a very close match and has the same reptillian textured appearance. It is far more likely than the foot of a dinosaur. Even the tissue tasting a few thousand years is highly unlikely – it does not appear to be naturally mummified and they mentioned it was found in the Gobi Desert so it almost certainly wasn’t preserved through freezing. Until there is far more information and testing I would bet it is still most likely a hoax.
I can’t believe I’m still getting notifications on this article. Also, it amazes me how many fundies have commented here. Their theories are sound. Lol
It was obviously a dino foot that proves all non-Christians wrong, and we are so happy that science is so easily disproven! Even though science has plenty of evidence to back up both evolution and carbon dating, this article that features a low quality pic of a rotten dino foot has disproven science once and for all!!! Never mind that dinos were not mentioned in the bible. It’s obviously a flood thing, like the unicorn. Don’t buy into “science”. The bible tells us that God will love you so, so very much, that he will ensure your eternal torment and agonizing pain in Hell if you don’t believe in him, even if you are otherwise a good person. Beware, heathen scientists! God will love you while roasts your flesh for all eternity! …. wow, I just found the face of Jesus on my grilled cheese!
The word “dinosaur” (terrible lizard in Latin) was not coined until 1800s, 200 years after the first English Bible was written. What word would the Bible use for such beasts?? Dragons. Carbon dating is based on circular reasoning, not science proper.
” The bible tells us that God will love you so, so very much, that he will ensure your eternal torment and agonizing pain in Hell if you don’t believe in him, even if you are otherwise a good person. Beware, heathen scientists! God will love you while roasts your flesh for all eternity! ”
Your biblical understanding is either pathetic or you are deliberately distorting the message to make God look bad and people look good.
It’s not God will but God does love us.
That He will ensure that you escapethe wages of sin if you believe in the One He sent to save us.
And He tells us that we are not good. Not good enough for a Holy God, even if we think that we are good in a world of people who obviously are not.
” The bible tells us that God will love you so, so very much, that he will ensure your eternal torment and agonizing pain in Hell if you don’t believe in him, even if you are otherwise a good person. Beware, heathen scientists! God will love you while roasts your flesh for all eternity! ”
Your biblical understanding is either pathetic or you are deliberately distorting the message to make God look bad and people look good.
It’s not God will but God does love us.
That He will ensure that you escapethe wages of sin if you believe in the One He sent to save us.
And He tells us that we are not good. Not good enough for a Holy God, even if we think that we are good in a world of people who obviously are not.
The European Union Times claims to be a news site. Its articles on Barack Obama have been linked from a few Libertarian Tea Party blogs, presumably pleased to find what is apparently a news site that supports some of their views. It even has lots of mainstream advertising served by ContextWeb! Eminently respectable to all appearances.
Upon closer inspection, however, it is little more than a compiler and regurgitator of various news stories and a particularly unpleasant far-right-leaning blog. The reporting is, without exception, shockingly unprofessional. Do not be fooled by the nice WordPress theme — this is utter neo-Nazi bollocks.
Yay, I link related wiki articles as well! I was willing to give this page a chance when i stumbled upon it despite the nonsensical article, but the comments really did it for me. Good to know that this is not a reliable website to never be viewed in the future!
A sucker is born every minute.
Looks like it’s giving all of us the finger (or claw, as it were!)
the stupid is strong in this comments section…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Moa_foot.jpg/220px-Moa_foot.jpg
One can’t overlook the obvious, it’s fake. p.s. Carbon dating may not be accurate to the decimal (years) but it is definitely not impossible.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98513784@N00/2558439706/
Original photo was taken in 2008. this is fake
Judging from these comments, it’s not doing a lot of good to publish scientific news, because many lack the intellectual ability to appreciate such.
Dinosaur’s died only recently in the great flood, around 7,000 years ago
we still have them hear today
a Rino is is in the triceratops family and, elephants, giraffes, crocodiles,etc are just forms of dinos that survived, they have been finding dino dna for years
AMEN!!!
oh really…
:)) =)) :D
http://smart-techniko.blogspot.com/2014/03/smartphones-review-smartphones-are.html
i believe dinosaur’s are real… they lived million’s of years ago..
http://www.pinoy-cars.blogspot.com
It’s a leftover from Jurassic Park, one of those muppet like doodads they used …… Whatever it is, chances are it’s definitely deceased ! :)) =)) :D :p
In all honesty, if this is a Moa foot, it IS a dinosaur. All birds are technically grouped within Dinosauria. They are direct descendants of the Therapods.
That theory was disproven years ago!!!!! Time to update your Nat Geo subscriptions! >
Yes, these scientists better revise the way they throw around age-phrases like “70 million years ago,” and such. Clearly the dinosaurs, as this find would heavily suggest, were much more recent. I love it when such evolutionary speculations are put on its head.
They’ll still ignore findings disproving what evolutionary ‘theory’ says the age of the earth is. Such as the fact that granite contains an isotope of radon that only lasts for a 1000th of a second. Which means that granite was made in less than1000th of a second. So maybe dinosaurs are’nt as old as calimed to be either?
I think you better revise which articles you take seriously. But maybe this article, along with other tabloid has bestowed deep knowledge that surpasses what scientists have worked their whole lives to achieve. But I’m betting that your pastor and assorted televangelists have told you that science is wrong. That proves it, I agree.
Sorry to ruin all the fun, but someone leaked the photo of mother-in-laws amputated hand. They tried to save it but it had some kind of disease.
This is a fine example of the bias that exists in all humans.
Quote:
They believe the beast had its leg stuck in the wet pocket around 70 million years ago. However, how it stayed preserved for that long is a question no one is capable of answering just yet.
End quote.
Translated: Contrary to all evidence, they will stick to their bias and make up whatever they have to so that they don’t have to abandon their Evolutionary foundation.
did google image search pasting copied pic it linked into stuff about Moa???
Again, I apologise for my rudeness.
I can’t know for sure, as I wasn’t there and I’m not a scientist. However, I am a science geek, and it is all but impossible for a foot to stay in such good shape for such a long amount of time under those conditions. Also, when this image first showed up, it was on reddit, and the world weekly news. Lol but as I said, I can’t know. I was mainly commenting on your reply where you stated that it does not look like a moa foot. I digress, I don’t want to argue either, and I must apologise to you and the other’s for my attitude. I was tired and I guess I acted a bit like a d**k. I do agree it is an excellent find either way.
@Defiant simple logic will tell you it’s not a dinosaur foot.
@Dennis …really?
@Robert respect, man.
@Alexander so… how do you know where the pic was taken? And how do you know it doesn’t look like a moa’s foot? It’s an extinct species. If you were an authority capable of concluding this, you wouldn’t be commenting on this article like the rest of us laymen. Truth is, you have absolutely no way of knowing if the photo is real or not. Anyone who reads this article and looks at that photo (who isn’t a professional) cannot simply come to a conclusion and say definitively what it is or isn’t. I say this because I am a prop designer, and I looked at this article because I’m creating something a lot like it. How do you know it’s not a prop?
By the way… the first time I saw this article in a link, it was on the world weekly news. A respectable source of the truth. Lol
Think before you speak.
Robert is the only commenter that made any kind of sense.
This isn’t a topic that it’s even worth arguing over so I’m not just gonna do that.
However I’m gonna ask you something. Since you said that I have now way of knowing what this foot really is, I’m gonna ask you the exact same thing. Do YOU have a way of know what it is??? How would YOU know its fake? Huh?? :D/
Anyway just like I said before, I’m gonna say it again: Even if it were a Moa foot, it’s still a great discovery. It’s probably the first ever mummified Moa foot.
Simple logic takes evidence into account contrary to you who dismisses it without any further info thats why I wrote “if thats real”, denying something without any furter study or info is not logical.
The photograph is of a preserved foot of a New Zealand Moa, not more than a couple hundred years old
Wikipedia article explains:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upland_Moa
The foot was found in Mongolia! So how could a New Zealand Moa live in Mongolia? =))
Besides the foot in this picture looks nothing like a NZ Moa foot. Anyway even if it were a Moa foot, it’s still a great discovery. It’s probably the first ever mummified Moa foot. ;)
Ummmmm. Alexander, If it indeed is a Moa, they had to travel from where the Ark landed, to NZ.
They bred and increased in number along the way.
The ones that didn’t get eaten on the way made it to NZ.
The polar caps melted some more and NZ became islands.
Simples!
Checks out …but mentions that that foot was 3000yrs old. Maybe it could be cloned for very big chicken burgers???
I know, by now, that the comments section is ALWAYS where the REAL news is. Thanks, Robert Karl Stonejek.
Also- http://www.dkimages.com/discover/Home/Animals/Birds/Extinct-Birds/Moa/Moa-1.html
I agree, if real then how recent or does the possibility exist its not from earth?
Simple logic will tell you that if thats real than it cant be 65million years old wich means some dinos did survive the ELE back than.
Or maybe the earth is only 6,000 years old as it is impossible to carbon date unless it is within a few thousand years, which would fit the bible, and the flood model.
We can Carbon date back 25 thousand years, also we know for Fact the earth is 4.5 billion years old by how uranium decays inside of an atom. We’ve looked back to the beginning of time with an X-ray telescope and know the universe is 15 billion years old. This is more than likely not a dinosaurs foot.
You are an absolute idiot! Wow, “we’ve looked back to the beginning of time with an X-ray telescope” Haha, you must love the sci-fi channel.
Actually its true. And you would understand if you understood how light travels and how telescopes can very accurately tell time. But then again the most idiotic thing is that the intrument you are using, the computer, is only possible using the laws and truths of physics, which indeed tell us the universe is 15 billion. You do belive you are sitting in front of a computer right? Well thats science. Thats physics. The same laws you supposedly dont believe. Yea, pretty vacant intellect.
Kim, just because you can’t wrap your mind around the scientific principles at work here, you shouldn’t call other people idiots. We routinely see things in space that don;t exist anymore because it takes light so long to travel these distances, so yes, we can see backwards in time, you’re just too stupid to understand the concept. Have you ever watched a race with a starter’s pistol? You’ll see the smoke a second or two before you hear the sound depending on the distance. This is all very scientific so get someone to explain it to you.
I agree with all thos dates and numbers, how do you come out with your conclusion? Any idea what can be?
Right on, Blaine. But instead, these scientists will continue to puzzle themselves about this seeming “impossibility” when the truth is already one they have rejected.
and you nuts… if that were the case then why us this so rare. If anything it is completely fake, if it does have any merit at all then i can almost bet they will use it to clone the creature, but this is pretty far fetched. Also Paganism is older than 6,000 years, so is Hinduism, just saying.
Carbon dating uses more isotopes than just carbon 14. It’s true that carbon 14 only has a half life of 15 thousands years if I remember correctly off the top of my head. But scientists use other isotopes that have much longer half lives when dating something that’s much older. If carbon dating was the guessing game that people make it out to be, it wouldn’t be a scientifically acceptable method in the scientific community. That’s just not how the scientific method works. You should really do do some research on carbon dating and molecules so that you can truly understand the subject before discrediting it. It’s an easy concept to understand.
Also I’m pretty sure that foot is of an ostrich or some other large bird.
Carbon dating does rely on carbon, thus its name. You likely mean that not all radiometric dating is dependent on Carbon. Carbon 14 dating is just one sort of radiometric dating.
What many people do not realize is that Carbon 14 dating is applicable only to things that were once living creatures. Other forms of radiometric dating may not require that, but carbon 14 dating does. it is based on the idea that there has always been the same ratio of Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 in the atmosphere thus all living creatures were taking in that ratio of carbon but, once they died, the took in no more Carbon 14 thus, as the Carbon 14 decays to Carbon 12, the ration in their remains changes thus enabling scientists to extrapolate their age.
Of course, this makes Carbon 14 dating subject to at least two plausible but non-provable assumptions: that the ratio of atmospheric C14 and C12 has always been the same and that the decay of C14 to C12 has always occurred at the same rate. Neither of those assumptions can be tested so it is, at least to some degree, a matter of faith as to whether C14 dating is rellaible.
that comment is the dumbest thing I’ve read all day
There will always be a strain between what scientific inquiry can discover and what the Scriptures declare. The reason is philosophical: science is limited to what it can discover by means of the natural senses plus whatever instruments can be invented to convert naturally in-detectible information into detectable information.
But, Scripture, according to its own claims, is privy to the mind of God. Of course, that is a matter of faith for many of its claims are not even possible to affirm or dent via scientific experimentation.
This does not render them falsified, only scientifically unverifiable. As to the age of the earth: Science is limited to applying present processes to the past through a reverse extrapolation. It is a plausible method but it is subject to unprovable presuppositions.
If one were to enter the Garden of Eden on the sixth day of Biblical history and apply present day physics to ascertain the earth’s age, one would have to conclude that the earth was at least 25-30 years old for standing in the garden is a full grown man. If one were to look into the night sky one would see stars and, if limited to the domain of science, would be forced to conclude that the universe was thousands, even million or billions of years old for it would take that long for the star light to reach earth.
But, the universe was six days old. Obviously, God created the universe to look older than it really is by somewhere between 30 years and billions of years.
And I look forward to what scientists say of this foot. It does present them with a difficulty and if they are honest scientists they will be forced to conclude that they have been wrong on some things for the presence of dinosaur soft tissue is simply impossible by present theory. It will be interesting to see which part of the scenario is falsified.
I am not confident in what you post based on the child like spellingand lack of comprehension.