The Right to Question Theory Presented as Fact- Dinosaurs

Woe be unto those who ridicule the necessity for a critical mind, in all veins of information; despite being faced with supposed absolutes.
Woe be unto those, who lose curiosity and the thirst for an accessibly understandable and graspable truth.

There is a deeply seeded philosophy of trust in all areas of authoritative academia, yet distrust and recognized sinister behavior in the realms of authoritative Law.
In my view, there is a heavy contradiction that lay within this mindset- how can one accept rebellion against the claims of Man's Law as "the way it always has been." While simultaneously repeating a similar mantra for the acceptance of many supposed scientific truths.
I have remained ambiguous about these claims for a reason- most, if not all absolutes claimed in modern science, are rooted in assumption and delusional belief at a foundation.

Most individuals believe themselves to be critical, intelligent and capable of recognizing deceit, and they would be correct.
All people are intelligent and all people can recognize truth when presented in a simple way.
Yet- how could you know deceit is being practiced? Do you have the right to question what has been fed to you as fact?

Squaring the circle....

How would you even consider a lie being woven, if are caught in the entertaining notion of Dinosaurs, as a child, for example?
The theory is presented as if the truth is already known beyond your capacity to question, simultaneously one is bombarded with media constantly reinforcing the belief.

There is no mention in Grade-School of the Dinosauria concept being erected by a Royal, Sir. Richard Owen, who already had vested interest in proving his imaginative claims before ever making a scientific venture.

In 1839 there are claims that Richard Owen had been sent a fossilized bone fragment, after his work on Comparative Anatomy and work with exotic animals gave him an educational background in bone-structure analysis.
Sir. Richard Owen managed to organize a theoretical claim that massive flightless birds walked in the lands of New Zealand from a bone fragment. A few years later, Richard Owen, incredibly, received more fossils fragments that, to his satisfaction, verified his claim, albeit still lacking any actual skeletal structure, and all claims coming from imaginative reconstruction- thus "Dinornis," an extinct Moa, became the first reconstructed creature from fossilized bone.

Incredible reconstruction from a few bone fragments...

In 1859, Charles Darwin released "The Origin of Species." This is incredibly significant, as many false claims and hoaxes are made immediately after this point by delusional "scientists" attempting to work their way into this new science. This is a well known fact.

In 1861, just 2 years after "The Origin of Species" is released, the so-called "missing link" and now well-known hoax "Archaeopteryx" had been discovered by a German Paleontologist "Christian Erich Hermann Von Meyer," who a few years later took on Richard Owen's taxonomic analysis techniques, and in Owen's supposed brilliance from assumption, the first link between extinct birds and Owen's own creation "great-lizards" was crafted, and coined with the name previously mentioned.

Owen's techniques on analysis were created by himself, for his own work- founded upon 3 claims he made in England in 1842, where he analyzed the bones of what seemed to be reptiles- conjuring 3 great beasts from a few fossilized bones and teeth; "Iguanodon, Megalosauras, and Hylaeosauras."

In closing this short article, would you believe these claims so readily if there were presented to you at face value, after years of being taught proper information dissection and critical thought- instead of having these claims presented to you right after you first begin to read?

I have no intention to make a claim to you, that these beasts never existed, but the critical mind can entertain without accepting either way.
Truth is the goal and for now I personally do not know the truth. But I will not choose to believe claims so silly and unfounded simply because it is widely seen as absolute truth.
I would rather accept that I do not know, than accept the philosophies of nihilism, insignificance and destruction of natural systems bound to evolutionary theory. Philosophies more prevalent in evidence than evolutionary theory itself, another topic I will get into specifically another day.

The intention in this series of articles is to analyze very accessible information, to look at a few of these claims for what they really are.

Remember that, what may seem to just be coincidence, is the coinciding dance of two aspects in a thing.
There is plenty more research to be done, research I would like you to pursue. As I will continue to do.

-Thomas