In the previous post, we put forward some arguments backed with evidence that the layered strata found around the world and used by defenders of the conventional paradigm to back their theories may have been deposited rapidly rather than over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

If this theory is correct, it would undermine the widely-held belief that the giant reptiles whose fossils were first called "dinosaurs" in the 1800s must necessarily have perished at least 60 million years ago. As we noted in the previous post, the coelacanth was previously assumed to have lived between 400 million and 70 million years ago, and to have become extinct at the end of the so-called "Upper Cretaceous" period (66 million years ago) -- that is, until living coelacanths were discovered in ordinary modern settings.

We have also noted that soft tissues in recently-discovered Tyrannosaurus legbones are causing conventional theorists to rethink their paradigm. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be rethinking the paradigm that the strata that held the leg-bones can be confidently dated to 68 million years ago, but rather their previous assumptions that soft tissues such as red blood cells cannot survive for more than thousands of years (and certainly not millions of years).

We cannot help but point out that artifacts discovered in the Americas, where civilizations remained largely undisturbed by the aggressive Roman Empire and its descendants for many centuries, seem to depict examples of creatures that we would easily identify as dinosaurs. Some of these artifacts depicting strange creatures were apparently noticed by the European intruders who began interacting with the civilizations of the Americas in the 1500s -- long before fossils found in England began to be associated with ancient giant reptiles in the 1820s, or the term "dinosaur" was coined in the 1840s.

Some of the more infamous of these alleged artifacts include the Ica Stones of Peru and the Acambaro figurines of Mexico. These finds have been dismissed as hoaxes, and I am not personally prepared to "fall on my sword" (as we used to say in the Army) to declare their authenticity. However, we have already noted the very common tendency of the defenders of the conventional paradigm to dismiss any anomalous evidence as a hoax (see here and here), which may be warranted when there are only one or two outlying data points but which becomes a little hard to accept when it is resorted to over and over and over again.

Finally, note the photograph above, which appears to indicate that T. Rex was fond of surfboards (whether certain shapes or colors of board were particularly attractive is not yet known). This would appear to be conclusive evidence that current theories need to be reworked. It also suggests that one should always check the area for signs of any Tyrannosaurs prior to a session (I always do).