Post: #26

(04-27-2017 01:22 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 12:19 PM)911 Wrote:  Don't be like them Merc.

(04-27-2017 01:14 PM)MiscBrah Wrote:  This hoax must have been started by the demons that came from the Hadron Collider

...

Do you guys realize you are beefin over dinosaur fossils? Do you realize how foolish this makes you two look?

If you guys need something constructive to do, send me a PM.

Post: #27

A different theory discusses the idea that large land animals such dragons were very real, but are not millions of years old, but rather are only a few thousands years old. This would explain how the myth of the dragon exists in so many different (non connected) human cultures across the globe.

Here is a indie documenatary examining legends of "dragons" in various parts of the globe, (for instance Alexander the Great seeing dragons in India, the Chinese myths of the woman Nüwa and the man Fuxi driving dragons out of China, as well as quotes from old scientific books from the 1500s saying that dragons were rare but still existed) as well as interviews with modern researchers (geologists) who have examined and cut open dinosaur (dragon ?) bones and disagree with the official scientific narrative.










We take so much of what we think we know since childhood at face value without ever questioning it, so I think these questions are important to examine and ponder.

Also, the fact that dinosaurs are powerfully and relentlessly marketed to children as "fun entertainment" is what makes me most suspicious.
The stuff we grow up with and have the most nostalgic childhood attachemnts to, is often the things we are most reluctant to admit were false.

Post: #28

Proof of live dinosaurs.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5T8mGIflUaU

Post: #29

This thread is the lulz

Post: #30

Didn't you guys hear about the park two years ago. A lot of people died. Tragic, tragic event.

Post: #31

(04-27-2017 02:20 PM)realologist Wrote:  There's no doubt dinosaurs existed. They were obviously called dragons in the past which makes a lot of sense if you look at dinosaur fossils especially flying ones.

What about dinosaur fossils in the bottom of rivers and other unreachabke spots they can't get them from without damaging the fossils. I've seen them for myself in Colorado.

Not everything is a conspiracy theory.

I doubt dinosaurs died as a result of a meteor though. If you look at oxygen levels throughout Earth's history the oxygen levels drop very quickly right around the time a lot of dinosaurs die. Animals that large need extra oxygen to survive. Same thing as with when insects were much larger. The other dinosaurs most likely died to the significant climate changes. Ice Age being one of them.

Yep. I read all the published literature I could find about the K-T extinction in college and I came away thinking the meteor story is pretty damn thin. The entire basis of the theory goes back to one or two papers by the same author from, what, the 70s or so? It's been awhile so I don't remember the details well.

As I recall, dinosaurs died out in the fossil record over a period of about 1 million years and those die offs were not always particularly close to the tektites that are thought to be from the Chicxulub impact, which you would expect if it was a catastrophic die-off. There was also all kinds of massive volcanism around then, like the Deccan Traps, and I concluded it was more likely there was some kind of long term atmospheric and/or climate shift that killed off most of the dinosaurs over hundreds of thousands or a couple million years.

Post: #32

Quote:Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Theory of Prehistoric Dinosaurs

10.
An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically.

That's a completely unsupported, naive statement to make. I should not have to explain why. And nobody said just the dinosaurs died out.

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Communicati...page1.html

That's a poorly formatted site that's hard to read but it does list a bunch of other stuff that disappeared in the K-T extinction.

Quote:9.
There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived

Um... citation? Some maths maybe?

Quote:8.
No one is allowed to question the Dinosaur Orthodoxy without extremely harsh criticism

Really? The notion of exactly what dinosaurs are has shifted significantly over the past 150 years. How did that happen if nobody is allowed to question the "dinosaur orthodoxy"?

Quote:7.
Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics

Citation please.

Quote:6.
Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in their backyards

Ah, here we go, finally something that at least has a modicum of sense even if it is still completely wrong. More than 65 million years is enough time for an awful lot of geological change. The Atlantic was substantially narrower back then. Uplift, erosion, sedimentation, lithification, more erosion, exposure, there ya go, some fossils are available to find. I'm sure there are many dinosaur fossils layered throughout the sedimentary rock in the world, they just haven't been exposed yet.

You don't just dig up 65-250 million year old fossils from dirt in the back forty.

Quote:5.
Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years

LOL. So? There are other methods brah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometri...ng_methods

Quote:4.
Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s

Okay? I don't know if that's true, but geology is quite a young science. What passed for geology before about the 1800s was pretty sad, and the science is still changing fairly rapidly as new tools and techniques come about.

Quote:3.
A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one

Archaeopteryx

Quote:2.
There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around

I don't know what that means or how it is relevant. This is some claim of confirmation bias, I guess? How does that work? I thought nobody thought about dinosaurs until the 1800s?

Quote:1.
Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean

That's a convenient, evidence free statement that suggests zero understanding of how tied together all life is. And it is seemingly contradicted by point 10 above.

--

That was a pretty weak list. Half the points are just total ass pulls.

Post: #33

Dropping oxygen levels are consistant with a large meteor strike as the dust clouds would wipe out plants too.

Post: #34

(04-27-2017 05:13 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Quote:Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Theory of Prehistoric Dinosaurs

10.
An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically.

That's a completely unsupported, naive statement to make. I should not have to explain why. And nobody said just the dinosaurs died out.

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Communicati...page1.html

That's a poorly formatted site that's hard to read but it does list a bunch of other stuff that disappeared in the K-T extinction.

Quote:9.
There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived

Um... citation? Some maths maybe?

Quote:8.
No one is allowed to question the Dinosaur Orthodoxy without extremely harsh criticism

Really? The notion of exactly what dinosaurs are has shifted significantly over the past 150 years. How did that happen if nobody is allowed to question the "dinosaur orthodoxy"?

Quote:7.
Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics

Citation please.

Quote:6.
Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in their backyards

Ah, here we go, finally something that at least has a modicum of sense even if it is still completely wrong. More than 65 million years is enough time for an awful lot of geological change. The Atlantic was substantially narrower back then. Uplift, erosion, sedimentation, lithification, more erosion, exposure, there ya go, some fossils are available to find. I'm sure there are many dinosaur fossils layered throughout the sedimentary rock in the world, they just haven't been exposed yet.

You don't just dig up 65-250 million year old fossils from dirt in the back forty.

Quote:5.
Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years

LOL. So? There are other methods brah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometri...ng_methods

Quote:4.
Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s

Okay? I don't know if that's true, but geology is quite a young science. What passed for geology before about the 1800s was pretty sad, and the science is still changing fairly rapidly as new tools and techniques come about.

Quote:3.
A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one

Archaeopteryx

Quote:2.
There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around

I don't know what that means or how it is relevant. This is some claim of confirmation bias, I guess? How does that work? I thought nobody thought about dinosaurs until the 1800s?

Quote:1.
Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean

That's a convenient, evidence free statement that suggests zero understanding of how tied together all life is. And it is seemingly contradicted by point 10 above.

--

That was a pretty weak list. Half the points are just total ass pulls.

Left: Merc
Right: weambulance

Post: #35

If we examine pre 19th century art in ancient cultures across the globe we find lots of dragons, but zero dinosaurs


Dragons on ancient Aztec temples in Mexico




Dragons on ancient Hindu temples in Bali, Indonesia




Dragons at the Entrance of the Great Muslim Mosque in Xian, China




Dragon in aboriginal rock art, Australia




Dragon on a ancient church fresco in Capodoccia Turkey




Dragon in Debre Birhan Selassie Church in Gondar, Ethiopia




Dragon fresco in medieval Church in Italy

Post: #36

(04-27-2017 05:13 PM)weambulance Wrote:  That was a pretty weak list. Half the points are just total ass pulls.

I did not write that 10 point list...I quoted it from another website for discussion in this thread.
See the link on previous page.

Post: #37

Re: the art, so what? You're going to have to explain that one a bit better because I don't understand your point.

Post: #38

(04-27-2017 05:55 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Re: the art, so what? You're going to have to explain that one a bit better because I don't understand your point.

Don't you think it's awfuly strange that all these ancient human cultures that were separated by oceans and mountains living on totally different continents, which had barely any contact with eachother, spoke completely different languages and had vastly different religions, all somehow came up with the same exact "fake" mythical animal to depict in their holy artwork ?

You want to tell me that's pure coincidence ?


No, it indicates that such a huge frightening creature actually existed in human times and was feared and talked by people worldwide until at least 400 to 800 years ago.

Post: #39

So your telling me in you believe in dragons that are hundreds of years old with no evidence but paintings and aetifacts but don't believe in dinosaurs with all kinds of fossils when the artwork looks very similar to a lot of dinosaurs. Hmmmmm.

Post: #40

Dragons are not the same in mythology, though. They're quite different morphologically between the different myth systems. Some dragons have legs, some don't. Some are more snakelike, others are stockier, more like big muscular lizards. Dragons don't even always have wings.

I think it's much more likely people thought up "Big lizard / snake creature" across many different cultures and we're calling them all dragons now because of the superficial similarity. In other words, I think you have your causality backwards here. Many different cultures didn't come up with the exact same dragon myths, we just lump big lizard/snake myths together because we think of that sort of thing as a dragon.

If something like that existed as recently as 500 years ago, there would absolutely be some remains available. People would've collected some skin or bones--actual honest to goodness bones, not fossils, which are not the same thing--or especially skulls from dragons they found dead in the woods. There would probably be nobles who got their titles for faking killing such a beast. And of course, there would be a lot more contemporary tales of people actually fighting them, because humans weren't exactly savages with sharpened sticks 500 years ago.

Giants and ogre-like creatures are pretty common in different mythological systems too, but I don't see anyone claiming giants were real. Unless you count people with hormone problems that grow 8+ feet tall and die at 25.


Edit - Even in the examples of art you showed, there are major morphological differences. So it's pretty clear they're not the same creatures at all.

Post: #41

(04-27-2017 06:06 PM)realologist Wrote:  So your telling me in you believe in dragons that are hundreds of years old with no evidence but paintings and aetifacts but don't believe in dinosaurs with all kinds of fossils when the artwork looks very similar to a lot of dinosaurs. Hmmmmm.

The theory I am putting forth for discussion is that the bone fragments and fossils that exist today may be a lot younger than they are telling us, and the creatures they represent are not what they portray in today's artwork and movies.

The dragon creature is present on ancient temples, in ancient churches and on ancient aboriginal artworks all on different parts of the planet, yet since the late 19th century we are basically saying all those men who sculpted and painted those things were frauds and were stupid to believe in something fake. Thats pretty insulting to the intelligence of those hundreds of generations of men that lived before us and dedicated their lives to fighting these beasts.

I think it's time to re-examine what exactly these ancient generations of men (who I believe were just as smart as we are) were depicting in their respective religions. To adopt a dismissive & negative knee jerk attitude towards ancient beliefs just because they are old is very naiive.

Post: #42

I'm pretty sure the only one here suggesting that mythology is stupid is you.

Just because I know their myths were wrong, it doesn't mean I look down on them or think they were stupid. I have the advantage of centuries more scientific knowledge.

The only way dinosaur fossils are actually young remains of dragons is if the entire science of geology is completely wrong.

Post: #43

(04-27-2017 06:26 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  The dragon creature is present on ancient temples, in ancient churches and on ancient aboriginal artworks all on different parts of the planet, yet since the late 19th century we are basically saying all those men who sculpted and painted those things were frauds and were stupid to believe in something fake. Thats pretty insulting to the intelligence of those hundreds of generations of men that lived before us and dedicated their lives to fighting these beasts.

Organized religion? Christianity behaving in the 1800-1900's behaving like we see ISIS today? We discussed this in another thread, but its similar to the giant skeletons that have mostly all disappeared at the time they were found in the 1800's as American farmland was cleared.

Post: #44

(04-27-2017 02:38 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  A different theory discusses the idea that large land animals such dragons were very real, but are not millions of years old, but rather are only a few thousands years old. This would explain how the myth of the dragon exists in so many different (non connected) human cultures across the globe.

Here is a indie documenatary examining legends of "dragons" in various parts of the globe, (for instance Alexander the Great seeing dragons in India, the Chinese myths of the woman Nüwa and the man Fuxi driving dragons out of China, as well as quotes from old scientific books from the 1500s saying that dragons were rare but still existed) as well as interviews with modern researchers (geologists) who have examined and cut open dinosaur (dragon ?) bones and disagree with the official scientific narrative.










We take so much of what we think we know since childhood at face value without ever questioning it, so I think these questions are important to examine and ponder.

Also, the fact that dinosaurs are powerfully and relentlessly marketed to children as "fun entertainment" is what makes me most suspicious.
The stuff we grow up with and have the most nostalgic childhood attachemnts to, is often the things we are most reluctant to admit were false.

Are we going to pretend that dragons aren't also marketed to kids?

Post: #45

(04-27-2017 06:26 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 06:06 PM)realologist Wrote:  So your telling me in you believe in dragons that are hundreds of years old with no evidence but paintings and aetifacts but don't believe in dinosaurs with all kinds of fossils when the artwork looks very similar to a lot of dinosaurs. Hmmmmm.

The theory I am putting forth for discussion is that the bone fragments and fossils that exist today may be a lot younger than they are telling us, and the creatures they represent are not what they portray in today's artwork and movies.

The dragon creature is present on ancient temples, in ancient churches and on ancient aboriginal artworks all on different parts of the planet, yet since the late 19th century we are basically saying all those men who sculpted and painted those things were frauds and were stupid to believe in something fake. Thats pretty insulting to the intelligence of those hundreds of generations of men that lived before us and dedicated their lives to fighting these beasts.

I think it's time to re-examine what exactly these ancient generations of men (who I believe were just as smart as we are) were depicting in their respective religions. To adopt a dismissive & negative knee jerk attitude towards ancient beliefs just because they are old is very naiive.

Nice way to put words in my mouth. Nobody called our ancestors stupid frauds. There are just many things misunderstood at that time due to scientific knowledge available. Most are simple cases of misidentification.

Modern humans we can all agree are older than what is typically stated.

So if we agree on that lets tackle the Aboriginal dragon. Megalania. An ancestor of the Komodo dragon except 18ft long and 1200lbs. Could easily eat men and looks like a dragon.

Post: #46

...And then you have all the other big reptiles that could feed the dragon myths. Alligators. Crocodiles. Big ass snakes.

Things are always made larger in the retelling. Before long you have a dragon the size of a house.

I have no reason to believe humans weren't lying their asses off hundreds of years ago about how big the "dragon" they killed or saw was, the same way people do today. New forced perspective pictures of dead "giant bears" show up every single year.

Post: #47

We need to investigate the loch ness monster next. We must find and destroy the monster before the Nessy alliance can cast a protective spell over our underwater nemesis.

Post: #48

(04-27-2017 07:24 PM)Repo Wrote:  We need to investigate the loch ness monster next. We must find and destroy the monster before the Nessy alliance can cast a protective spell over our underwater nemesis.

Don't post this. You know Nessie had an alliance with Big Foot and he can read. Probably scouring the form plotting his return from the underside of the flat earth with el chupa cabra.

Post: #49

(04-27-2017 06:59 PM)Repo Wrote:  Are we going to pretend that dragons aren't also marketed to kids?

Dragons are marketed to kids...but as something fake.
Also, most marketing nowadays is positively orientated towards dragons, wheras in most world religions it was a symbol of either evil and fear, or the devil/satan, or a secret occult power.

For instance, in the christian story of St George and the Dragon, the pagan people in Libya who worshipped it were feeding it sacrifices....first animals, then virgin girls, and finally small children and babies. St George was horrified when he saw this and promised to kill it with his roman soldiers if all the pagans swore they would convert to Christianity. Notice the skulls and dead bodies in this ancient artwork below.






A similiar story of human sacrifices to big serpents and dragons can also be found in the Portugese and Spanish conquerors who arrived in the americas in the 1500s. Apprently both the Aztecs & Mayas in Mexico and Incas in Peru were also making sacrifices to "Dragons" or "Dragon Gods" and this was one of the reasons why the europeans were so disgusted they killed most of them.











And today we have threads on RVF with endless rumours of people into satanism who might be abusing children both in hollywood and in washington with pizzagate. The similiarities are not coincidental in my eyes.

Post: #50

First time i heard the Incas making sacrifies to "Dragon Gods". And actualy their sacrifices were more in the "lets drug some virgins with coca and chicha and left them to mumify in a high mountain" than in "lets rip their heart out". Also, i you check mesoamerican myth, the only dragon-like diety is basically Quetzalcoatl (and mostly its feathered serpent wing was more simbolic than anything else).