It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is satan a Dragon? Are Dragons Dinosaurs?

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: cooperton


Well this is where we are mistaken, our "representation" of a stegosaurus would be limited to the fossilized tissue found in the ground. Whereas their direct observation may be able to help us elucidate some missing anatomical soft tissue that would have decomposed. Looking at an elephant skull, can you tell that it has huge ears? No.


Actually, yes you can. One item of note is that on fossilized remains there is what we refer to as attachment point scarring. It tell you how large a muscle or tendon is and gives a lot of information in regards to what those muscles, tendons, etc... are holding on and the size of what is being held there.


From fossilized remains, would we know if a stegosaurus had large ears, or some other large soft tissue aesthetic? No.


You would though. There are several tools available that can give us a great deal of insight as to the yypes, shapes and sizes of soft tissue involved when we only have fossilized bone to work from.


examples, sources? Can you explain how we actually DID find soft tissue in a "70 million year old" T-Rex?

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this."" - Mary Schweitzer

Our theories of how fossils are preserved is fine, it is rather an issue of how old we think these remains are.



supporting the fault in the methodology by bringing up 14c dating. It demonstrates that a serious lack of due dilligence is taking place here in lieu of confirming religious proclivities.


I only mentioned c14 dating because someone gave me an article claiming a tree was 80k years old, and their dating source was c14. Shockingly, dendrochronology did not support this claim. Dendochronology is great, by measuring rings on a tree, which we know the start and stop date, and the rate during the whole process, we have a consistent, accurate dating method. So, what is the oldest dated tree using this method? 5,000 years is the oldest I could find. My problem with methods that do not have a reliable starting reference, or account for variability, is the same problem I have with the following question:

travelling at a speed of 20 mph, I reached Denver. How long did it take me to get there?

You could assume certain things to try your best to estimate how long it took me to get there, but without a concrete start date, it is left to speculation. Do you get the analogy? I genuinely want to hear an explanation as to how radiometric dating methods that do not have a starting sample are able to generate reliable dates... or do dates change depending on the opinions of the scientist: creation.com...
edit on 21-6-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Both St George's (England) and Beowulf's (Written in Old English, but takes place in Denmark) dragon were described in English recorded history, which is a testament to the significance of the depictions of these dragons.


This depiction indicates the growing importance and stabilization of the modern concept of the dragon within European mythology. Beowulf is the first piece of English literature to present a dragonslayer. Although many motifs common to the Beowulf dragon existed in the Scandinavian and Germanic literature, the Beowulf poet was the first to combine features and present a distinctive fire-breathing dragon. Wikipedia

And incidentally, the story of St George and the dragon is in no way English, and his dragon never breathed fire.

If you find any pre-Beowulf examples of fire-breathing dragons in the myths and literatures of the world, post them. Remember we'll be wanting solid, falsifiable evidence, not some internet 'expert's' opinion.


Why would the literate waste their time writing fake stories?

In my own case, I do it because I want to read the story I have in my head in all its detail, and because writing prose fiction is the greatest creative and technical challenge a writer can take up short of writing it in verse.

People like Dan Brown and Jeffrey Archer can probably offer even more compelling reasons for writing 'fake stories'.

And doubtless winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature, such as William Faulkner, Orhan Pamuk, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Dario Fo all had their reasons, too.


This is historical evidence that implies dragons/dinosaurs were alive the same time as humans, can you give me evidence otherwise?

You know, this is a perfect illustration of why I cannot offer you even the minimal respect due to an honest opponent. You know very well — I know you know it, because I have seen you told — that is is logically impossible to prove a negative. Yet you demand proof of a negative, knowing full well it cannot be supplied. Contemptible.

Beowulf is a work of fiction, not journalism, and the presence of a dragon in it does not indicate that dragons ever existed. In the original Northern European dragon-saga, the dragon, Fafnir, is a transmogrified dwarf; and his breath is not fire but poison, like St George's dragon. If we're treating Anglo-Saxon folk epics as journalism, shouldn't we treat the Icelandic sagas likewise?


I never thanked you for implying I am a neanderthal, with a larger cranial capacity than you. Gotta love the Freudian slip.

You're welcome. Maybe you should dedicate some of that cranial capacity to learning what a Freudian slip is.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton


Both St George's (England) and Beowulf's (Written in Old English, but takes place in Denmark) dragon were described in English recorded history, which is a testament to the significance of the depictions of these dragons.


This depiction indicates the growing importance and stabilization of the modern concept of the dragon within European mythology. Beowulf is the first piece of English literature to present a dragonslayer. Although many motifs common to the Beowulf dragon existed in the Scandinavian and Germanic literature, the Beowulf poet was the first to combine features and present a distinctive fire-breathing dragon. Wikipedia

And incidentally, the story of St George and the dragon is in no way English, and his dragon never breathed fire.


He's the patron saint of England. You were talking in regards to English history


If you find any pre-Beowulf examples of fire-breathing dragons in the myths and literatures of the world...


Dragons (and dinosaurs) come in all shapes and sizes, of course not all cultures are going to be describing the same terrible lizard. But, the City of Krakow, Poland got it's name from Krak, a man who killed a fire-breathing dragon. The book of Job pre-dates beowulf and is in my OP (which you probably didn't even read), and it describes a creature with "Flames blazing from his mouth, and streams of sparks flying out".



In my own case, I write fake stories because I want to read the story I have in my head in all its detail, and because writing prose fiction is the greatest creative and technical challenge a writer can take up short of writing it in verse.


Would you find it odd if people all across the globe were writing the same story as you, depicting the same beast, despite you not having communicated with them?



Maybe you should dedicate some of that cranial capacity to learning what a Freudian slip is.


You implied I was a neanderthal with the intent to insult me, but your subconscious actually adores me, which is why you accidentally complimented my larger cranial capacity.
edit on 21-6-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Temudjin
a reply to: OptimusPrimeOne



Check your direct message inbox, wouldve posted in thread but I didn't want to derail



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


He's the patron saint of England.

Yes, this is a fairly well-known fact.

What did I say?


Astyanax
the story of St George and the dragon is in no way English

If this is an example of the quality of your reading, I can see why you think viruses are demons and dinosaurs are dragons.


Would you find it odd if people all across the globe were writing the same story as you, depicting the same beast, despite you not having communicated with them?

I would indeed. But, as you yourself point out...


Dragons (and dinosaurs) come in all shapes and sizes, of course not all cultures are going to be describing the same terrible lizard.

Votre pétard, Monsieur?


You implied I was a neanderthal with the intent to insult me, but your subconscious actually adores me, which is why you accidentally complimented my larger cranial capacity.

Actually, I was making subtle reference to the white racist appropriation of Neanderthals that has taken place since it was discovered that black people have no Neanderthal DNA. Nice to see you rise to the bait.


edit on 21/6/15 by Astyanax because: of Neanderthals.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

examples, sources?


It's certainly fair to say that there is some degree [/I]of speculation in reconstructions and that the level of speculation increases as the completeness of remains in question diminishes. With that said, the more complete the skeletal remains, the more complete the final image will be and the more accurate they will be.


With a working model of the skeleton, artists like Brougham must first think about muscles. The bones help in this regard. Muscle attachment points are sometimes obvious as scars on fossils, and the relationship between muscles and bone is fairly consistent for most vertebrates.


onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

discovermagazine.com...




Can you explain how we actually DID find soft tissue in a "70 million year old" T-Rex?

By looking at the fossils in a new way. Up until Dr. Schweizer decided to slice a thin layer off of the fossilized remains and look under a microscope, it was not in the normal bag of tricks for Paleontologists. This was simply because the assumption for the previous 300 years, was that it was impossible for that level of soft tissue preservation. If you look around, I think you will find that now that Paleontologists are aware of this phenomenon, more and more are taking closer looks at remains for soft tissue preservation and many are finding it. It's not that it wasn't ever there before. It's that nobody bothered to look before. As we have found numerous examples of fossilized skin or skin impressions as well as copious evidence of feathering on a great many remains, it stands to reason that more and more soft tissue will be found to be fossilized or at least we will locate fossilized impressions. This means paleontologists will be taking much closer looks at things that may initially seem innocuous.



Our theories of how fossils are preserved is fine, it is rather an issue of how old we think these remains are.

And what exactly do you believe is wrong with current dating methods? It's easier to address specific issues than it is for me to write a paper while essentially issuing blanket statements in an attempt to cover all bases.



I only mentioned c14 dating because someone gave me an article claiming a tree was 80k years old, and their dating source was c14


But it was done in the context of rebutting radiometric dating in general. I just looked a couple of times and I can't find in the source provided to you where Pando was given it's 80KA date via 14c, could you provide a citation for that? Because unless there is some new data out there, that has never been the method ascribed to dating Pando.

While Pando isn’t technically the oldest individual tree, this clonal colony of Quaking Aspen in Utah is truly ancient, and at 6,615 tons, it is also the heaviest known living organism on earth.. The 105-acre colony is made of genetically identical trees, called stems, connected by a single root system. Pando is located in the Fishlake National Forest, near Fish Lake on the Fish Lake Plateau located at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah.


The Pando's current 80,000 year designation is based the evidence indicating that there are few if any naturally occurring new aspens in most of the western United States since a climate shift took place 10,000 years ago and eliminated favorable soil conditions for seedling. Successful seeding has not occurred in the western United States since the last glaciation, some 10,000 years ago due to the rarity of a favorable suite of conditions in semiarid environments.



Shockingly, dendrochronology did not support this claim.


Of course not, it was never used nor claimed to have been used. Pando is not a singular organism or tree. It is a 105 acre root system that has been perpetuating itself through clones for a minimum of 80KA and perhaps 10x that long. You can't use dendrochronology on a root system.



Dendochronology is great, by measuring rings on a tree, which we know the start and stop date, and the rate during the whole process, we have a consistent, accurate dating method.


It is also one method for calibrating and corroborating 14c dating among others.



So, what is the oldest dated tree using this method? 5,000 years is the oldest I could find.


Using dendrochronology? it's 5,064 years +/-


My problem with methods that do not have a reliable starting reference, or account for variability, is the same problem I have with the following question:
travelling at a speed of 20 mph, I reached Denver. How long did it take me to get there?

Except that in ALL dating methods, there is a known margin for error and that variable is ALWAYS included. In your example, you negate variables that are known when calibrating the various radiometric methods applied.


You could assume certain things to try your best to estimate how long it took me to get there, but without a concrete start date, it is left to speculation. Do you get the analogy?


do YOU get the analogy? or rather, why it is invalid? A better analogy would be that when you arrived in Denver, it had a population of 5 million people. You don't know how long it took the population to build up to 5 million people but you do know specific variables such as birth and death rates as well as how many people moved TO Denver per annum as well as how many people moved OUT of Denver per annum. It's a pretty simple mathematical problem at that point.



or do dates change depending on the opinions of the scientist: creation.com...


I was initially going to explain the dates ascribed to LM3, how they were obtained and how they all tied in to the archaeological and anthropological records of Australia but let's be honest... your own source doesn't bother disputing the science or explain why the science is wrong aside from simply proclaiming that it is wrong because it doesn't take into consideration Noah's Flood and then giving a specific date to this flood without supporting that date. It's an insult to junk science or pseudoscience to call it such when the entire conclusion (this is from YOUR citation) sums it up as-


In short, the dates are wrong because they are based on wrong assumptions. For example, the carbon-14 method does not account for the disruption of the carbon balance during the Flood some 4,500 years ago.11 The uranium methods do not make the correct assumptions about the initial conditions of the samples or about the effects of changing environmental conditions through time. The luminescence dates have the same problem.


If your source is correct, then why does it not explain what exactly caused or is the source of this alleged disruption of the "carbon balance"? You can't say the science is wrong and then cap it off with a profoundly unscientific summation.

If the science is wrong, then what are the correct dates? Your source doesn't care as long as you disbelieve the science and instead put full belief and faith in the bible.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


originally posted by: cooperton

I genuinely want to hear an explanation as to how radiometric dating methods that do not have a starting sample are able to generate reliable dates...



The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:

• The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.


• Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).


• The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).


2. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).


3. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).


4. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).


phys.org...


And while I'm thinking about it...


With a cranial capacity of 1600 cm3, Homo neanderthalensis was the hominid with the biggest brain sizeThe increase in brain size among humanoids topped with neanderthals. Since then, the average brain size has been shrinking over "time".


The average brain size has NOT been shrinking ever since then. That is an over generalized fallacy.
1. The average size of an HSS cranium vs. a HN cranium overlaps and are well within the average ranges of one another.
2. Cranial capacity is a direct corollary to body mass. HN had more body mass than HSS so when you factor that in, their cranial capacities were a little on the small side compared to ours.
3. Their brains were set up differently than ours. Their visual cortex was significantly larger than ours is. It's one reason their eyes were larger. It allowed them to see better in dimmer northern latitudes. It also meant that there was less room for other brain functions. So no, they weren't necessarily smarter than we were. Their brains were more specialized and adapted to their specific ecological niches. Ours were more generalized allowing us to adapt to a variety of ecological niches and one of the reasons for our level of success overall. It's not how big it is, it's how you use it.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

The average brain size has NOT been shrinking ever since then. That is an over generalized fallacy.
1. The average size of an HSS cranium vs. a HN cranium overlaps and are well within the average ranges of one another.
2. Cranial capacity is a direct corollary to body mass. HN had more body mass than HSS so when you factor that in, their cranial capacities were a little on the small side compared to ours.
3. Their brains were set up differently than ours. Their visual cortex was significantly larger than ours is. It's one reason their eyes were larger. It allowed them to see better in dimmer northern latitudes. It also meant that there was less room for other brain functions. So no, they weren't necessarily smarter than we were. Their brains were more specialized and adapted to their specific ecological niches. Ours were more generalized allowing us to adapt to a variety of ecological niches and one of the reasons for our level of success overall. It's not how big it is, it's how you use it.


One interesting theory is once man started to farm we were able to stabilize our food sources but at a cost to quality of what our diet had been for millions of years, and this had effected our growth patterns for a long time including brain function/size etc...

I'm not sure how that relates today with our ability to get any food source, vitamins. minerals etc that we want.


edit on 22-6-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I can certainly see they playing a roll in human development. It would appear to be rather evident in the morpjologies of some populations at various times. Look for example at the height of the average Roman citizen vs. contemporary Gauls or German tribes. Or the height, health and lifespans of various European populations after the fall of Rome until fairly modern times. I realize it's not a very scientific approach but it's an interesting overview based on a couple of examples off of the top of my head. It would be interesting to look a little farther and see what a genetic analysis has to say.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Peter vlar

Could it cause a overdeveloped pineal gland?



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Peter vlar

HN planning was probably crucial to surviving in northern latitudes, do you think modern societies are built on the principles of HN? Cause if you take a look at northern latitudes where the HN culture arouse you still see the same principals.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Peter vlar

Actually I just wish we could say, hey guys our masters are Neanderthals, and we are monkeys and humans are ideals in a fantasy.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: Peter vlar

Could it cause a overdeveloped pineal gland?


Could stabilized food sources as a result of sedentary farming practices cause an overdeveloped pineal gland? Or are you asking something else? It's a little difficult to discern based on how you are asking.



originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: Peter vlar

HN planning was probably crucial to surviving in northern latitudes, do you think modern societies are built on the principles of HN? Cause if you take a look at northern latitudes where the HN culture arouse you still see the same principals.


Any hominids survival was dependent on its ability to plan. What specific principles of HN are you referring to? What aspects of their culture are prevalent are still present in modern societies at Northern latitudes that you burge are still in use today? What is the basis for this assessment?


originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: Peter vlar

Actually I just wish we could say, hey guys our masters are Neanderthals, and we are monkeys and humans are ideals in a fantasy.


You don't need to wish it. You just said it! What exactly do you mean by this statement and what is the context and historical basis that supports it?

edit on 22-6-2015 by Peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

I said the story of St George and the dragon is in no way English


No. First you said this: "You have no idea how little history has actually been recorded — even the history of Europe."

So I listed historical examples from England. Take a deep breathe before you respond, you sound like a hernia.



Dragons (and dinosaurs) come in all shapes and sizes, of course not all cultures are going to be describing the same terrible lizard.


Yet the underlying theme of these beasts is terrifyingly large lizard. I wonder if aboriginal Australians have stories about a man-bear-pig, first sighted by Al Gore (They don't, because its not real.).



Actually, I was making subtle reference to the white racist appropriation of Neanderthals that has taken place since it was discovered that black people have no Neanderthal DNA. Nice to see you rise to the bait.


I would suggest you stop your racial prejudice then.
edit on 22-6-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
So would riding large dinosaurs and using for battle would lead them astray from God because its super cool?

Also, wouldn't Satan have a brain?



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I wonder something, something peculiar. If the bible speaks of Egypt as such an evil hierarchy, and this is a Christian nation, why oh why is a FREAKING EGYPTIAN pyramid on the dollar bill?



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

It's certainly fair to say that there is some degree [/I]of speculation in reconstructions and that the level of speculation increases as the completeness of remains in question diminishes.


(I read the rest of your post, but want to focus it to this to avoid derail). This is the issue, it is speculative. Especially since soft tissue is remaining in fossilized tissue, not just in T-rex, but other samples that are proposed to be from long long ago. We must keep an open eye, if we put on blinders to other evidence, such as humans living alongside dinosaurs. The evidence I gave makes a significant case that dinosaurs did live alongside humans, and the biggest argument against that is all the old dates of existence we have for these beasts. You would certainly be more receptive of the OP if it did not defy scientific dogma on the age of the dinosaurs. But what worries me is that the ages ascribed to these dinosaurs is based on speculation, yes, radiometric dating helps, but has its issues. Dendochronology is the ideal form of dating IMO, we know that each tree ring is a complete cycle of the seasons, and there is little ambiguity in the results. With that being said, the oldest tree indicated by this dating method is 5000 years old. Sure, this limits us to trees only, but other methods require extensive speculation. Not to mention all the variables throughout time that cannot possibly be accounted for.


A better analogy would be that when you arrived in Denver, it had a population of 5 million people. You don't know how long it took the population to build up to 5 million people but you do know specific variables such as birth and death rates as well as how many people moved TO Denver per annum as well as how many people moved OUT of Denver per annum. It's a pretty simple mathematical problem at that point.


no, because that would imply you knew the starting population (0), in radiometric dating you do not have a start point, which is why I omitted the start point in my example I gave you.

I am not asking anyone to change their mind, rather, just keep this possibility in mind as your search for the truth continues. I presented the evidence, anyone can take it or leave it. We're all in this together, and we should be questioning everything. Luke 3:23-38 proposes the a lineage of humankind, this is the only written record we have like this. Unfortunately, The dinosaur (dragon) has led the whole world astray (Rev 12:7).
edit on 22-6-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I mean Pokemon led me Astry from the path of righteousness and sanity, but boy when I got my level 33 Satan, I said "Forget God, Because Charizard is all I need to send that blasphemer Blastoise, as well as the Infidell Venusaur because my Satan sent them to Hell with a fire blast.
edit on 22-6-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

edit on 22-6-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Specimen
I mean Pokemon led me Astry from the path of righteousness and sanity, but boy when I got my level 33 Satan, I said "Forget God, Because Charizard is all I need to send that blasphemer Blastoise, as well as the Infidell Venusaur because my Satan sent them to Hell with a fire blast.


Video games are the most addicting thing I have ever done, and I've dabbled with supposed "addicting" things. Screens in general; TVs, computers, video games, cell phones, etc. Some researchers have proposed that people literally "love" their phones.

This is why the number of the beast is 666 (www [world-wide-web] in Jewish alphabet) and is used in your hand (texting, browsing, whatever) and head (phone call, also on your fore-conscious thoughts) . Despite knowing this, I still use all my internet-affiliated fun screens. Have you played an online MOBA? That stuff is addicting. Not to mention ATS forum, I spend probably 10 hours a week on this. No one even goes outside anymore. It's like we're trapping ourselves in a 2D reality (screens).
edit on 22-6-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join