Is satan a Dragon? Are Dragons Dinosaurs?

originally posted by: cooperton


It could be coincidence that these people were drawing/sculpting images from their imagination that so happened to resemble a species that became extinct millions of years ago, but I think the more likely option is that they were actually observing these creatures and that is how they were able to depict them so accurately.

The key word in all of this is "resembles". There is no accuracy in the depictions and most depictions are highly stylized. Again, as has been demonstrated, there are reptiles the world over that live today or were still living in our recent past, that also resemble these depictions. but somehow, you believe that it makes more sense despite no dinosaurs being found in comparable stratigraphy to any humans. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence of dinosaurs and humans living at the same time.

Proof? Not 100%. Possibility? Absolutely

Not ANY percent, not proof at all. Possibility? Highly improbable and extraordinarily implausible.

There have been dinosaur bones found that still have intact red blood cells: www.nature.com...

No there haven't. Please read the citation you provided, that's not at all what it says.

For creationists this helps reinforce their belief, whereas for everyone else it is food for thought.

If so then the table is bare and people are going hungry.

If, for example, dendrochronology, an irrefutable non-subjective dating method, would demonstrate a tree to be over 10,000 years old, I too would have to reconsider my thoughts on the world.

Ice cores go back 100's of thousands of years, dendrochronology is one method used to calibrate the efficacy of, and margin of error for, 14C dating so you can add another 50KA onto your 10KA window to the world.

My experiences, which I can't articulate in a productive manner, have led me to my current ideas on this world. The fact that Revelation predicted people being deceived by dragons (dinosaurs) reinforced my viewpoints - maybe not for others, but for me, it did. Even Darwin was an agnostic.

Hey, if confirmation bias floats your boat down the river and makes you happy then so be it. There is however a massive disconnect to go from 'Dragons were really dinosaurs' to 'dinosaurs are deceiving us all rarrrr'
I'm confused about what Darwin's religious proclivities have to do with your extreme interpretation of biblical scripture but, and it's only my personal opinion, but isn't that kind of a cop out to allude to some experience leading to a mystical awakening and then go on to say that it is inarticulable?

The search continues

not really but please... carry on.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Proof? Not 100%. Possibility? Absolutely

Not ANY percent

That's not very scientific of you.

There have been dinosaur bones found that still have intact red blood cells: www.nature.com...

"No there haven't. Please read the citation you provided, that's not at all what it says."

from the citation I provided:

"Furthermore, we observe structures consistent with putative erythrocyte remains that exhibit mass spectra similar to emu whole blood" (Erythrocytes are red blood cells)

You can continue to refuse new evidence, but I'll be keeping my eyes opened:

"Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted."(www.nature.com...)

Like you said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is extraordinary evidence that dinosaurs are not as old as we think.

originally posted by: cooperton


"Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted."(www.nature.com...)

Like you said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is extraordinary evidence that dinosaurs are not as old as we think.

No, not at all. It is an indication that "the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted."

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: cooperton


"Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted."(www.nature.com...)

Like you said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is extraordinary evidence that dinosaurs are not as old as we think.

No, not at all. It is an indication that "the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted."

that was their explanation to fit the old-earth model. They're not going to crucify their career to suggest that dinosaurs are not as old as previously thought.

Do you think soft tissue can withstand 100 million years of decay, in which "none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation..."

a reply to: cooperton

Well, you might need to redefine your terms:

Scientists have found remnants that have some similarities to red blood cells and collagen fibres in fragments of dinosaur fossils.

The researchers examined part of a fossilised dinosaur claw and identified tiny structures that look ovoid and with an inner denser core. These could potentially be red blood cells although the researchers caution that further evidence would be needed to confirm that the structures do not have another origin.

Further evidence would be needed to definitively conclude that the structures found originate from a preservation of collagen.

Study author Dr Sergio Bertazzo, a Junior Research Fellow from the Department of Materials at Imperial College London, said: "We still need to do more research to confirm what it is that we are imaging in these dinosaur bone fragments, but the ancient tissue structures we have analysed have some similarities to red blood cells and collagen fibres. If we can confirm that our initial observations are correct, then this could yield fresh insights into how these creatures once lived and evolved."

Study author Dr Susannah Maidment, a Junior Research Fellow from the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, added: "Our study is helping us to see that preserved soft tissue may be more widespread in dinosaur fossils than we originally thought. Although remnants of soft tissues have previously been discovered in rare, exceptionally preserved fossils, what is particularly exciting about our study is that we have discovered structures reminiscent of blood cells and collagen fibres in scrappy, poorly preserved fossils. This suggests that this sort of soft tissue preservation might be widespread in fossils. Early indications suggest that these poorly preserved fossils may be useful pieces in the dinosaur jigsaw puzzle to help us to understand in more detail how dinosaurs evolved into being warm blooded creatures, and how different dinosaur species were related."

Source

In NO way is it refuting the age of the fossils. It IS exciting news, and I'm sorry that you have tried to fit this information into your agenda. Hey, here's an idea. If you're so cock-sure of yourself, why don't you contact the authors and ask them to consider your 'proposal'?

I'm sure you won't because it's far easier arguing with a group of people on the internet then being made to look ridiculous by those who actually do the work.

originally posted by: cooperton

That's not very scientific of you.

But there isn't any PROOF therefore, since science or rather, the scientific method, isn't about absolutes such as proof, it is actually a scientific assessment as I find the proof you claim wanting.

from the citation I provided:

"Furthermore, we observe structures consistent with putative erythrocyte remains that exhibit mass spectra similar to emu whole blood" (Erythrocytes are red blood cells)

Please refer to the portions I placed in bold and underlined... erythrocyte REMAINS. This is NOT intact red blood cells, it is remains of proteins consistent with erythrocytes within fossilized...repeat...fossilized, soft tissue. The tissue itself was not soft, it was not fresh, nor was it viable. It had qualities consistent with erythrocytes showing that the fossilization process, though somewhat rare, was able to encompass these soft tissues. Not the same thing as fresh, new red blood cells as you seem to be implying this states.

You can continue to refuse new evidence, but I'll be keeping my eyes opened:

I'm not refusing any new evidence, I'm understanding what the research actually says and not imparting my own designation on it. One of the biggest learning moments from this data was that additional evidence and data lies in places nobody thought to look previously...INSIDE fossilized bone. Fossilized soft tissue is not a new phenomena by any means, what was new was that somebody cut into the permineralized bone and took samples which led to the find at hand. It's an incredibly impressive step towards a better understanding of the past but by no means is it what you claim it is.

"Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a more common phenomenon than previously accepted."(www.nature.com...)

Like you said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is extraordinary evidence that dinosaurs are not as old as we think.

It's not though. You are merely misinterpreting or misunderstanding, the data, to fit your preconceived notions of a young Earth. our notion is entirely hinged on your own confirmation biases and ignores the conclusions of the researchers themselves.

The research is indeed extraordinary, it just does not confirm what you believe it does. The data and the research team behind it, contradict your position in its entirety. I asked to demonstrate dinosaur remains that were discovered in the same geologic strata as a human being and you gave me a 75 MA fossil. Nowhere in the same realm.

Just to be clear, I do not deny that the SEM analysis shows what appear to be concave structures(indicative of red blood cells) and likely nuclei of cells, my dispute lies in your interpretation of the data because it does not indicate a young age of the earth, merely a new area of study within fossilized remains that may themselves, lead to even further developments. The age of the remains though is not at all in question.

A further note... the very first line of the abstract is-

Exceptionally preserved organic remains are known throughout the vertebrate fossil record

Here is some visual data from the referenced paper-

It refers to ERYTHROCYTE-LIKE structures... not erythrocytes themselves. This implies remnants of original erythrocytes in the tissue but in no way refers to a young age of the fossils in question. Refer to the area marked I in the attached photo. This is under SEM where red blood cells would be clearly apparent. This simply is not the case here.

originally posted by: peter vlar

It's not though. You are merely misinterpreting or misunderstanding, the data, to fit your preconceived notions of a young Earth.

As if you are not doing the same for your preconceived notions of an old earth?

I asked to demonstrate dinosaur remains that were discovered in the same geologic strata as a human being and you gave me a 75 MA fossil. Nowhere in the same realm.

75 MA based off the preconceived notion of an old-earth... Regardless, if you actually think soft tissue can survive hundreds of millions of years without special preservative conditions, then here is a fossil that has a sandal footstep and a trilobite (which were assumed [note the problem with assumptions] to be hundreds of millions of years old) in the same fossil: Meister Print

originally posted by: cooperton
Meister Print[/url]

If that site is indicative of the calibre of the information you are providing us with (and it would sadly appear that this is so) then there is no hope.

Copyright © 2008-2015 - ForbiddenHistory.info

Disclaimer: This site is not affiliated or sponsored with or by any archeologist, society of archeologists, university or institution, or any published authors (such as Cremo or Kenyon). Any similarities are coincidental in nature and unintended.

Exactly



Oh, that (possible) ichnofossil with a trilobite superficially looks like a footprint. Without seeing the context and by using parsimony I can safely and confidently say it's not a Human footprint. You've been duped.

originally posted by: cooperton

As if you are not doing the same for your preconceived notions of an old earth?

Actually, no. I'm not. I'm looking at the evidence you are giving and appraising it just like I would any other specimens or data I've worked with and appraising it under the scientific method. Furthermore, the team who studied these fossils and wrote the paper you cite have a completely contrary conclusion to yours. Have you studied these remains yourself or have an anthropology or paleontology background that gives you more insight into the data which lends your opinion credence upon examination of the evidence?

75 MA based off the preconceived notion of an old-earth...

Not based off of preconceived notions. Off of scientific data, proper dating sequences and peer reviewed work. Your refutation of the accuracy of such lends absolutely no weight to your argument whatsoever. Please provide an actual analysis of what is incorrect regarding the data presented in the paper published in Nature because all you've got is bravado and incredulousness to provide support. As this is the case, I'm not surprised at all that you're melt focused on a very specific portion of my post, my comment regarding your preconceived notions(which you admit with your attempt to try and turn it around on myself with your accusation) and completely ignore the actual science I introduced into the conversation. It's pretty standard fare for YEC proponents even when I actually address the claims from a scientific perspective.

Regardless, if you actually think soft tissue can survive hundreds of millions of years without special preservative conditions,

Fossilization/permineralization in and of itself is a rare phenomena already. What the study you referenced shows is that permineralization of soft tissues may not be as rare as paleontologists/anthropologists et al, originally thought. They worked on several samples and 3 of them showed signs of soft tissue preservation within the bone structure(including collagen like fibers and possible proteins). As I note above, the very first line of the abstract from your citation discusses the frequent occurrence of soft tissue preservation of many varieties. It just was assumed that other soft tissues were able to survive within the permineralized bones themselves. I encourage you to actually read the papers in their entirety instead of quote mining them.

then here is a fossil that has a sandal footstep and a trilobite (which were assumed [note the problem with assumptions] to be hundreds of millions of years old) in the same fossil: Meister Print

The only people making assumptions regarding the 1968 find in Utah were the creationists who jumped on it like a harlot in heat, including Duane Gish for whom the "Gish Gallop" is named for. For the record, it's not actually a fossilized imprint of a sandal( or boot imprint depending on which creationist is arguing in favor of its ability to destroy the geologic column ), it's a natural occurrence. Duane Gish of the ICR and a San Francisco Reverend named Reverend Boswell, were the first 2 people to really tackle this in a 1971 debate just 3 years after Meister found the fossilized trilobites. Even in 1971, other creationists (such as Robert Kofahl and Kelly Seagraves) were very leery of using this find as evidence in support of YECism. Reverand Boswell had this to say about the find-

I have here something that pretty much destroys the entire geological column. I don't know if you can see this or not, but it has been studied by three laboratories around the world and it's been tested and found valid. If you can see it [holding up a picture], it represents a footprint that was found at Antelope Springs, Utah, while digging for trilobites.

The man was digging for trilobites, and these are trilobites here and here embedded [pointing]. This is a brick mold of a trilobite footprint [laughter] of a human footprint with a trilobite in it. The man stepped on a living trilobite, [thus burying] him in the mud. This particular strata is dated Cambrian, supposedly 500 million years extinct before man arrived on the face of the earth. The interesting thing about this photograph is that there is also heel marks, which would indicate that they were made by modern man.

In bold, he claims it was tested and found valid by 3 separate labs. When asked about this claim, Boswell stated that the tests were done by univ. of Utah, UCLA and another whose name he simply couldn't recall. So, unlike most YEC proponents, someone decided to engage in good old fashioned Due Diligence.

Here is what the Univ. of Utah had to say about the find-

The "footprint" in question was collected by a man named Meister several years ago, and it was immediately jumped on by Melvin Cook, who is not a paleontologist, as evidence of human-trilobite cohabitation.

I have seen the specimen in question and it is nothing more than a slab of Wheeler shale that has a fragment spalled off in the form of a footprint, which reveals a trilobite, Erathia kingi.

To reiterate, the trilobite is genuine, the footprint is not.

From Professor William Stokes of the Department of Geological Sciences. Dr. Stokes wrote:


I unhesitatingly assert that this is not a footprint. I have observed and collected a number of types of footprints that meet all the critical requirements, and I have had no qualms about describing these in print even though some were totally new. The Meister specimen is the result of a natural break, which happens to resemble a footprint. This type of fracture is called spalling and the part which breaks out or is detached is called a spall.

The specimen was in no sense faked, and I am sure it was found exactly as reported. But I, along with my geologist friends, are equally sincere in my belief that it is an accidental natural product and not a footprint.

One might think a difference of opinion such as this could be solved by appeal to impartial judges or by a more thorough investigation of the field of evidence. But from the time of discovery, the specimen has taken on a religious significance that makes a friendly solution almost impossible.

See, what YEC proponents don't ever seem to grasp is that any scientist, who has the requisite amount of data to properly support the position, is going to make their career off of proving that the geology or paleontology is incorrect. However, it's not just one discipline or branch of science that supports, as you call it, an Old Earth paradigm. Everything from genetics, to biology to geology to paleontology on to physics and chemistry just to name a few off the top of my head, supports all currently accepted models and theories. There is not a single iota of evidence that supports YEC positions. Only the bible and incredulousness and ignorance towards the science. Most people have no scientific background at all or in the rare cases of those with a scientific background...they are operating out of their fields and areas of expertise. The numbers of actual geologists or chemists for example, who have their training and background in those fields is miniscule to say the least.

a reply to: cooperton

So our brain size is getting smaller, but our technology and understanding of the universe is increasing?

I'm kind of left scratching my head at that one?

a reply to: peter vlar

The creationist "sandal/bootprint" resembles the claim in the same way that the "Old Man in the Mountain" rock formation in New Hampshire. Unlike say, the Laetoli Footprints showing that Australopithecines were walking upright just like modern humans do, this "print" had none of the hall marks of a traditional footprint or shoe impression. The heel is ~1/8 of an inch deeper than the ball of the foot which wouldn't happen unless the person was walking heel to toe. The weight distribution of the impression is nothing like how a human being walks.

The sides of the print are unnaturally angular, and the whole print is unnaturally shallow. Cook even notes the shallowness, saying, "The heel print was indented in the rock about an eighth of an inch more than the sole." This doesn't make for a very pronounced heel.

Nothing about this find gives anyone who has actually studied the impression or the science surrounding it the idea that it is a genuine human foot/sandal/boot print.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

What Cooperton conveniently leaves out of that particular factoid is that while Neanderthal and even early European HSS had slightly larger brains than we do today, brain size is directly correlated with body mass. Neanderthals had far more muscle mass than we do. Likewise with what used to be referred to as Cro-Magnon man who walked across Europe 20KA. Additionally, Neanderthal had a much larger visual cortex than modern humans do today which left them with less cerebral cortex than we do. Consequently, our brains processing power is significantly greater than our forbearers despite brain sizes being, on average, slightly smaller. Just to touch on that bit, those figures are all averages. There were Neanderthal and early HSS with smaller brains than we currently have and there were some with much larger. Either way, what is left out of the equation is that within those averages there is a great deal of overlap as well as variables unaccounted for(such as the fact that while HN had larger brains, a big chunk of it went towards giving them better vision but not any more actual intelligence).

This is going to blow your mind!

Science is AWESOME!

I'll be able to provide more information from the paper when I am at work and have journal access.

The bible has been translated many times and it is suggested that a lot of the 'original' meaning was not conveyed well from translation from Greek then to Latin then English as much of it would have been metaphorical rather than literal.

Also consider that the original meaning could have been referencing fire or lava as ancient cultures in their lack of scientific knowledge used mythology as a means of description and referencing nature, and Christianity is based on many other religions such as Mithraism etc, so Sun /son from the heavenly (astrological /astronomical) sky and inside the earth being dynamic and filled with magma, which they probably acclaimed to demons due to lack of comprehension.

There could also be reference to fossils of dinosaurs that were believed as mythical creatures that got tied into the mixture from mythology and the absorption of other pagan religions during the formation of Christianity.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: cooperton

So our brain size is getting smaller, but our technology and understanding of the universe is increasing?

I'm kind of left scratching my head at that one?

What Peter Vlar was saying is true, intelligence is based on encephalization; the ratio of brain mass to bodily mass. BUT... our "understanding" is a double-edged sword. Medical treatment has been estimated multiple times to be the #1 cause of death

Death by Medicinal Treatment
More Death by Medicine

There's so much money in medicine that this fatal fact will not stop us from continuing dangerous medical treatment. The arrogance is disheartening. This same chauvinism is the same with the theory of evolution. The dinosaur has led the world astray (Rev 12:9), quite literally

a reply to: cooperton
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time ?

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: cooperton
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time ?

Don't you get tired of being smug all the time? I'm just the messenger:

"a great (Syr. black) serpent (dragon) came out of a hole, beating with his head and shaking his tail upon the ground.... And the apostle inquired of him, saying: Tell me of what seed and of what race thou art. And he said unto him: I am a reptile of the reptile nature and noxious son of the noxious father: of him that hurt and smote the four brethren which stood upright (om. Syr.: the elements or four cardinal points may be meant) I am son to him that sitteth on a throne over all the earth that receiveth back his own from them that borrow: I am son to him that girdeth about the sphere: and I am kin to him that is outside the ocean, whose tail is set in his own mouth: I am he that entered through the barrier (fence) into paradise and spake with Eve the things which my father bade me speak unto her: I am he that kindled and inflamed Cain to kill his own brother, and on mine account did thorns and thistles grow up in the earth: I am he that cast down the angels from above and bound them in lusts after women, that children born of earth might come of them and I might work my will in them: I am he that hardened Pharaoh's heart that he should slay the children of Israel and enslave them with the yoke of cruelty: I am he that caused the multitude to err in the wilderness when they made the calf: I am he that inflamed Herod and enkindled Caiaphas unto false accusation of a lie before Pilate; for this was fitting to me: I am he that stirred up Judas and bribed him to deliver up the Christ: I am he that inhabiteth and holdeth the deep of hell (Tartarus), but the Son of God hath wronged me, against my will, and taken (chosen) them that were his own from me: I am kin to him that is to come from the east, unto whom also power is given to do what he will upon the earth."

The Acts of Thomas 30-32

gnosis.org...

a reply to: cooperton

I'm confused why you think you can use the words "serpent" and "dragon" interchangeably. One is a creature that exists and another defies physics. I mean, I know WHY you did it. You did it to try to make your point appear more credible (though relying on an old book to tell you something like this is a flawed information gathering technique to begin with). I'm just curious how you'd think that none of us would notice your trick there.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: cooperton
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time ?

Don't you get tired of being smug all the time? I'm just the messenger:

Its a pity your message is distorted by religious fanaticism then.

if dragons are real, then that must mean tianlong is our true master. those qing dudes had it right all along.



tianlong would be disappointed to learn of you using his descendants to promote western philosophy.