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.

 

Show me the non existance of dragons!

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I told you that these were reports, so what were you expecting?




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragiero
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I told you that these were reports, so what were you expecting?


Boy oh boy you have a lot to learn about research and credible evidence.....



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Dragiero,

There are some on this site who will tell of reptilians. And perhaps write that it is from these *beings* that our concept of dragons come from. I think you can find them in the Gray area.

Also, you could ask in the metaphysics area, perhaps there are some astral projecting members there that may have experience with dragons, as such.
I know there is a thread there now about summoning demons...

This may seem like an odd question, but do you want to *be* a dragon?
A transformation maybe?
What is your interest in them and what brings you to (I do not know what to call it), dragon-lore?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Clearly you are playing asinine games with words. I proved a negative, not a universal negative, but a negative.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Clearly you are playing asinine games with words. I proved a negative, not a universal negative, but a negative.


No, I'm not, nor am I trying to argue it. It is a concept that is very in depth. Proving something is not in your backyard right now is not proving a negative, it is proving the positive that your backyard does not contain that thing.

Proving a negative would be proving that it was NEVER there.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Dragons exist, they are a genus of lizards, hence the Komodo dragon, or the amazonian dragon. IMO these are pretty nasty things anyway.

Also, never give up hope. The civilized world believed Gorrillas were a mythical creature as well until they were confirmed to exist in the 1920's.

Also take the giant squid for example, we thought they couldn't exist, even though there was a little evidence (whale scars), and now we not only know it exists but have actually caught one alive on camera!

If there are stories about it than those stories were based on something real. The true question is how close does the real thing resemble what the stories portray? It is said that recent archeological evidence shows that 7,000 years ago some dinosaurs did still exist, as tribes would carve dolls and fashion clay models that were of dinosaurs. HOW COULD THEY KNOW WHAT A DINO WAS IF THEY DIDN'T EXIST???

Fight the good fight and you will find the truth. However I warn you, it may be too hard to swallow.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I never heard we had dragons in the Amazon Forest. Amazonian Dragons you say? Hmmmm, nope. Never heard of it.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



No, I'm not, nor am I trying to argue it. It is a concept that is very in depth. Proving something is not in your backyard right now is not proving a negative, it is proving the positive that your backyard does not contain that thing. Proving a negative would be proving that it was NEVER there.


I have a proposition A. I can formulate the negative proposition ~A. Are you claiming that both propositions are positives? LOL. Very funny.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



No, I'm not, nor am I trying to argue it. It is a concept that is very in depth. Proving something is not in your backyard right now is not proving a negative, it is proving the positive that your backyard does not contain that thing. Proving a negative would be proving that it was NEVER there.


I have a proposition A. I can formulate the negative proposition ~A. Are you claiming that both propositions are positives? LOL. Very funny.



ugh
you are missing the point. There is a negative to every positive. Any positive statement has a negative. Only the positive side can be proven or disproven.

But again, this is irrelevant and pointless, and not something i expect you to grasp.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Ooooh. Out with the ad hominems.

So x>0 has a negative x



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Ooooh. Out with the ad hominems.

So x>0 has a negative x



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



The two numeric statements you made are not negatives. They are seperate statements. You are thinking of opposites, not negatives. There is a difference, kiddo.

Thanks for the cutesy acknowledgement that you have no idea what you are talking about.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
School time seems a must.

Let's learn what negation is.
Negation

Now it's a statement of proving a negative.
"You Can't Prove a Negative"

As stated, the rule "You can't prove a negative" is demonstrably false.

You can prove a negative

It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong.

You can prove a negative

There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s
easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of noncontradiction.
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is
both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the
empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws
of logic is a provable negative. Wait … this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that
one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another
negative! In fact, “you can’t prove a negative” is a negative — so if you could prove it true, it
wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.


Finally, here is a place where negation is used in proofs.
Modus Tollens



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I think the myths about dragons come simply from dinosaurs. It's not hard to think that people thousands of years ago may have thought a pterodactyl skeleton belonged to a dragon. And who knows maybe some of these creatures survived the mass extinction and they were around in limited quantities thousands of years ago. That isn't a stretch.

But a firebreathing dragon? Come on. I can buy into a giant lizard or even a dinosaur surviving their armageddon, but dragons in the traditional sense today don't seem plausible.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mikemp44
If there are stories about it than those stories were based on something real. The true question is how close does the real thing resemble what the stories portray? It is said that recent archeological evidence shows that 7,000 years ago some dinosaurs did still exist, as tribes would carve dolls and fashion clay models that were of dinosaurs. HOW COULD THEY KNOW WHAT A DINO WAS IF THEY DIDN'T EXIST???


Who says this? Link a source to this statement otherwise it's just hearsay.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Hrmm. Well.. there is the passage in that book... Job 41:15, 18-21



“His strong scales are his pride, shut up as with a tight seal. . . . His sneezes [breathings] flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning torches; sparks of fire leap forth. Out of his nostrils smoke goes forth, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes forth from his mouth.”


I always found it interesting. As a child when I first read that story in the Bible, I immediatly thought.. "A dragon.." Since then I found many of my childhood instincts to be correct..
hehe so.. for lack of better evidence, cept maybe the bones and fossils of giant creatures.. and myths and all that.. I'll go for -- yea.. I think there were dragons. Ciao4now RDDS



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
School time seems a must.

Let's learn what negation is.
Negation

Now it's a statement of proving a negative.
"You Can't Prove a Negative"

As stated, the rule "You can't prove a negative" is demonstrably false.

You can prove a negative

It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong.

You can prove a negative

There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s
easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of noncontradiction.
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is
both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the
empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws
of logic is a provable negative. Wait … this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that
one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another
negative! In fact, “you can’t prove a negative” is a negative — so if you could prove it true, it
wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.


Finally, here is a place where negation is used in proofs.
Modus Tollens


I am not going to keep going round and round on this. I have read your little articles. Each one either
A)claims theory as fact(such as, we can prove that the world is not flat, which, is a theory, not a fact). Furthermore, the idea that we can prove whatever shape the earth is is proving a positive, not a negative. You still dont seem to get that whiel there is a negative to everything, it cant be proven;

or
B)Attempts to use mathematical equation to prove the point, which is fallacy, as a negative number is not the same as negative logic.

Keep on believing what you want to believe.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Interesting thread on logic and proof here.

To say nothing exists is problematic and logically confusing. You cannot present nothing, for if you could it would be something.

You can deduce that something is not present in a domain, but only by discounting all elements of that domain. But you cannot use that deduction to induce a larger superset.

So there is no dragon in your backyard. You qualify this by examining every object in your backyard and assuming there is a dragon. At the end of the tally you have no matches.
However, you cannot say the same of your neighbors backyard; at least until you examine their yard.
The principle of induction for n + 1 yards won't work here.
We have to examine all domains, on earth. Maybe we have?

Cause and effect can be proven however,
Have we put this in a statement like If A then B? We can then take the contrapositive and prove that. If not B then not A
Like "if raining, then it is cloudy" is equivalent to "if not cloudy, then not raining".

If Dragons exist, then

What would be the asserted tautological conclusion? Picking that is the tricky part.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
I think the myths about dragons come simply from dinosaurs. It's not hard to think that people thousands of years ago may have thought a pterodactyl skeleton belonged to a dragon. And who knows maybe some of these creatures survived the mass extinction and they were around in limited quantities thousands of years ago. That isn't a stretch.

But a firebreathing dragon? Come on. I can buy into a giant lizard or even a dinosaur surviving their armageddon, but dragons in the traditional sense today don't seem plausible.


Lizards spit poison sometimes. Some poisons feel like they are burning.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I was making a general point, but I will elaborate.

the Amazonian dragon I was referring to is a genus of lizard similar to the bearded dragons in Australia; everyone knows of these and we know they are lizards, not fire breathing dragons.

As for the clay statues, i was wrong on the timing, but the actual timing was 1,500 years ago, which really furthers the case FOR dragons given that is a much shorter period of time. Link below

Dinosaur Figurines

What gets me is that history seems to have a repeating pattern of "its mythical" to "its real, but a little different then we thought."

We know so little of our world yet pretend or conclusions are absolute. We all could take a great lesson from existence and the universe itself in realizing nothing is absolute save God, and there are those that would argue even that.

Whether the sterotypical "Dragon" was real is moot, something existed to give basis to these stories that exist around the world, by people who had no connection with each other. So far the math looks to be in favor of dragons, but then again math is also in favor of the flying spaghetti monster being real. So again, it is up to you in what you believe.

And no I am not going to post the math as it would be asanine and frankly I don't think anyone really cares that much.

Bigup yourself!!!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join