PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dragons
       myth or real?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this thread comes as a result of a conversation in the "How Old Is IT Really?" thread
I have accumulated the following images and quotes for you to scrutinise over if you like, placed into chronological order for your convenience.
NOTE: unless a different name is already associated with the creatures shown, I shall be using Dragon as the generic name
also NOTE: if the site hosting the images is down, the images will not show. not till that site is back up

Pteranodon = of the order Pterosauria. a species of extinct flying reptiles who existed in the late Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous Period (220 to 65.5 million years ago).
___

the following quotes are from The History of Herodotus by Herodotus (C. 5th BC):

I went to a certain place in Arabia, almost exactly opposite the city of Buto, to make inquiries concerning the winged serpents. On my arrival I saw the back-bones and ribs of serpents in such numbers as it is impossible to describe; of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps, some great, some small, some middle-sized. The place where the bones lie is at the entrance of a narrow gorge between the steep mountains, which there open upon a spacious plain communicating with the great plains of Egypt. The story goes, that the spring the snakes come flying from Arabia towards Egypt, but are met in this gorge by the birds called ibises, who forbid their entrance and destroy them all. The Arabians assert, and the Egyptians also admit, that it is on account of the service thus rendered that the Egyptians hold the ibis in so much reverence.
Book 2. Chapter 75.

Again, Arabia is the most distant to the south of all inhabited countries: and this is the only country which produces frankincense and myrrh and casia and cinnamon and gum-mastich. All these except myrrh are difficult for the Arabians to get. They gather frankincense by burning that storax which Phoinikians carry to Hellas; they burn this and so get the frankincense; for the spice-bearing trees are guarded by small Winged Snakes of varied color, many around each tree; these are the snakes that attack Egypt. Nothing except the smoke of storax will drive them away from the trees ...
So too if the vipers and the Winged Serpents of Arabia were born in the natural manner of serpents life would be impossible for men; but as it is, when they copulate, while the male is in the act of procreation and as soon as he has ejaculated his seed, the female seizes him by the neck, and does not let go until she has bitten through. The male dies in the way described, but the female suffers in return for the male the following punishment: avenging their father, the young while they are still within the womb gnaw at their mother and eating through her bowels thus make their way out. Other snakes, that do no harm to men, lay eggs and hatch out a vast number of young.
Book 3. Chapter 107.
___

the following quotes are from 'On the Nature of Animals' by Aelian (C. 2nd-3rd century AD):

The Black Ibis does not permit the Ophies Pterotos (Winged Serpents) from Arabia to cross into Aigyptos (Egypt), but fights to protect the land it loves
Chapter 2. Verse 38.

Megasthenes states that in India there are … snakes (ophies) with wings, and that their visitations occur not during the daytime but by night, and that they emit urine which at once produces a festering wound on any body on which it may happen to drop
Chapter 16. Verse 41.
___

The following images are some of the images from the Aberdeen Bestiary that show winged snakes.
the Aberdeen Bestiary is a12th century English illuminated manuscript bestiary
it shows illustrations and describes the habits of several different genus / species of flying snakes (Folio 64v to Folio 72r)






images from the Bestiary of Anne Walshe (couldn't find date)




___


Detail from the Bayeux Tapestry showing King Harald's standard bearer at the Battle of Hastings (1066 AD).
___

references in the Bible of 'Fiery Flying Serpent' (Hebrew words are m'opheph [flying] and saraph [fiery snake]):  

Do not rejoice, all you of Philistia, because the rod that struck you is broken; for out of the serpent's roots will come a snake, and its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent
Isaiah 14:29

The burden against the beasts of the South. Through a land of trouble and anguish, from which came the lioness and the lion, the viper and the fiery flying serpent, they will carry their riches on the backs of young donkeys, and their treasures on the humps of camels, to a people who shall not profit
Isaiah 30:6

References lacking a mention of "flight" to the "fiery serpents"

Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint
Deuteronomy 8:15

(6) And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. (7) Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. (8) And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live
Numbers 21:6-8
___

the Cockatrice was first mentioned as a duplicate of the basilisk in the "Pliny's Natural History" (12th centry)
___


City seal of Zwolle (1295) with Saint Michael killing a 'basilisk'
___


"Saint Michael and the Dragon" by a Spanish (Valencian) Painter, first quarter 15th century
___

the following illistration are from Liber Floridus (1448) by Lambert of St. Omer


Wyvern speared by angels.


Liber Floridus Woman


cover art
___


From the painting The Princess and the Dragon(c. 1470) by Paolo Uccello
___


A French wooden image, dating from the 16th century
___


page from a manuscript by Willibald Pirckheimer (1470-1530).
this manuscript (c. 1512) was the Latin translation of a Greek text, the 'Hieroglyphica' by Horapollo (fourth century AD).
___


a tapestry from the Château d'Azay-le-Rideau (France)
was built in the "first years of the reign of Francis I" (1515–1547)
___


An allusion to the old story of the Pygmies and the Cranes (a Greek myth with no Egyptian connections at all) found in the book "Emblemata" (1564) by Joannes Sambucus
the image was also accompanied this the following text (translated into English). I believe it to be a poem from the book "Emblemata":

The ibis frightens winged snakes from her shores; but look! A basilisk, even uglier, is emerging from the egg. Egypt worshipped the stork in ancient times, and made her its death-bringing defender against the Ethiopian. Nothing is always happy in every way, and useful things come conjoined with evil. If it holds off for a long time the horrid threats of evil fortune, still, it adds others, no less strong, of its own, from its own store. True safety is in heaven: here no one’s profit is complete; there Spring knows no end, and all beauty flourishes.
___

the following information is from the book 'he History of Four-footed Beasts and Serpents' (1607) by Edward Topsell.

Aldrovandi (considered the leading naturalist of the early Renaissance) said "Julius Scaliger described a savage type of serpent of four feet in length, and thick as a human fore-arm and was told that flexible wings of gristle are attached"

Gesner (the leading German zoologist of the 16'th century) records that in 1543 near Stiria (Germany), serpents with wings and legs did bite and wound many men 'incurably' (poisoned then)

quote directly from the book: "Neither have we in Europe only heard of dragons and never seen them but also even in our own country there have (by the testimony of sundry writers) many been encountered and killed. And first of all there was a dragon or winged serpent brought unto Francis the French king when he lay at sanction by a certain country man who had slain the fame serpent himself with a spade when it set upon him in the fields to kill him. And this thing was witnessed by many learned and credible men which saw the same and thought it was not bred in that country but rather driven by the wind from some foreign nation."

another quote: "Among the Pyrenees also, there is a cruel kind of serpent, not past four feet long and as thick as a man's arm out of whose sides grow wings much like unto gristles."
___


This coin is a 1622 taler from the German city Mansfield
___


Arms of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough (26 May 1650 – 16 June 1722)
___


there is a story of a dragon that lived  in the wetlands near Rome, and it terrorized the local population. and was eventually killed in December of 1691. sketch of the skeleton (above) has survived in the possession of Ingegniero Cornelio Meyer
___


Rendering from a 17th Century treatise
___


cover of the book "Hśllischer Morpheus: Saducismus Triumphatus" (1704AD)
___


The first Pterosaur fossil was found in the Solnhofen Limestone beds by the Italian naturalist Cosimo Collini in (1784AD)
___

the following are quotes from the book 'Hierozoicon: sive, De animalibus Sacrae Scripturae ' (c. 1793-1796) by Samuel Bochart (scholar. competent in Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and Latin. knkown for claiming the flying serpents of Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6 were still alive):

To what extent the flying snakes are ... remaining is confirmed by many of our generation: and in fact in France itself toward the Pyrenees Bigerrones there is a genus of serpents usually hiding, with pointed wings spread out appearing to be made of cartilage.

And Odoardus Barbosa from mountain territory who separated them into Malabar [apparently from the Latin word mala meaning "jaws of death"] and Narsinga [apparently derived from the Latin naris which means "nose"].

If on your travels you encounter the serpent with wings who circles and hurls himself at you, the flying snake, hide yourself because of its reputation. Lie down when the snake appears and guard yourself in alarm for that snake's manner is to go away calm, considering it a victory (the Malabar)

There are winged and flying serpents that can be found who are venomous, who snort, and are savage and kill with pain worse than fire, their reputation is (the Narsinga).

And Vincent le Blanc says in Peregrinationum chapter 25; At the eastern lakes of Chiamay [or Chamonix] there are large forests and vast swamps, and there among them is danger: there are serpents who are very degenerate and, just as it becomes evening, they fly rising over the land, and rest on the end of their tail, rapidly going into motion. They are set in motion around that location at times in large numbers in a desolate area of the province
___


A "cockatrice" overdoor at Belvedere Castle (1869AD) in New York's Central Park
___

G. E. Smith's 1919 book "The Evolution of the Dragon" explains that ancient notions of a dragon only included a snake-like body, leathery wings like a bat, and two legs. The front legs were not added till the 16th century
___


image of the "Cockatrice" from the story of "the Wherwell Cockatrice" (unknown date)
___









how do each of you interpret this information ?





-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 8:12 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

my personal interpretation is:
as recently as the 1700s, there existed multiple breeds of two legged serpentine creature with bat-like wings. likely breathed fire.

because I expect criticism towards my interpretation, and to help eliminate some of the clutter on this thread, I have compiled a list of rebuttals I expect to receive and have supplied my responses.
if you think you need to repeat or re-word any of these questions then do so.


in Britons folklore the Cockatrice is born from a cock (rooster) egg that was incubated by either a toad or a snake. geneticly such a match up is impossible....(and so on)
I do not believe that the Cockatrice was born from a rooster and a toad/snake either.
although the ancient Britons may have exaggerated on the origins of the Cockatrice, who is to say that they exaggerated on the existence of the Cockatrice?

some of these are obviously based on myth's and fictional stories. for example, the story of St. Michael...
the story of St. Michael and the seven headed draogon is from Revelation 12.
this is the only description the bible gives of the dragon: a great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and upon its heads seven diadems.
and of the images that I supplied, the seven headed dragons look different from each other. and the City seal of Zwolle's dragon only has one head!
this (to me at least) would indicate that the dragons depicted where based on existing creatures.

these 'Dragons' you speak of are things of myth. next you will try and convince us that the griffin is real !
only if there is as much evidence to support the existence of the griffin as there is to support the existence of these Dragons / Cockatrice / Basilisk / Wyveren / etc

both the cockatrice and the basilisk are sometimes claimed to be able to kill people with a single glance.
do you really expect us to believe that a real, non-mythical, creature can kill us just by looking at us?
I have two responses to this:
1) it is possible that the story tellers gave these creatures superpowers to make them more exciting.
2) some of the descriptions say "with a single breath". so if we where to substitute "breath" in place of "glance" then we have a description that better fits the the stereotypical 'Dragon'.

perhaps they could breath fire. perhaps the such powers where invented to make them more interesting. either way, neither proposal effects the question of whether or not such creatures existed in the first place



as I was doing my research for this post I learnt the first Pterosaur fossil was found in the Solnhofen Limestone beds by the Italian naturalist Cosimo Collini (as mentioned above).
but it wasn't till later that I realised that the 'pterosaur' found by Cosimo Collini was a Archaeopteryx fossil.this image helps to show where the fossil was found in the limestone bed in relation to other fossils.
just thought I should share that fact with everyone else ^_^



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 8:19 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E,

I'm happy to tell you that I share your love and facination of dragons.  Of all the mythical creatures, dragons are the coolest.  They come in a variety of temperments:  from the nasty ones that love to eat virgins,  to the more noble creatures, such as Draco in 'Dragonheart'. 'Dragonheart' is probably my favorite dragon movie.  But I'll have to confess, the virgin eating ones come in a close second.

Yeah, dragon are cool.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:45 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where are all the fossils and bones? If the world is no more than 10,000 years old, shouldn't we have found some of these fossils. Not to mention that many creatures of mythology were based on inaccurate interpretations of fossils found at the time. Doesn't this look like a cyclops skull?



Doesn't this look like a unicorn horn?



There have also been links between the manatee and mermaids. This is all off the top of my head, I'm sure if anyone actually decides to look they will find a plethora of other examples of ancient cultures mistaking bones and other organisms as things of mythology.

I would also like to see how you think something can breathe fire! That should be interesting. Do you think the Chimera also exists? There are statues and drawings of it!

I think you would have loved the Final Fantasy game series when you were a kid. They have dragons, wyverns, dinosaurs, werewolves, zombies, skeletons, demons, magic, lizards, elementals, and things I can't begin to explain.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:24 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, check out the book "The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times" by Adrienne Mayor.   It explains how ancient cultures could have mistaken unearthed fossils for fantastic creatures and built myths around them.  I think it's a much more reasonable explaination for dragons, cyclops, giants, and the like than believing they actually existed.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:34 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The incredible thing is how folks who put forth such notions suddenly dismiss the exact same type of evidence when such evidence runs coutner to their preferred myths.

Note how A-E did not deem it necessary to produice tapestries, mosaics, drawings, etc. of the Jovian deities, nor the Kraken, nor Tiamat, nor the Titans.

Note that AS-E does not think that the creatures found in H.R. Giger's art are real (e.g., Alien), that Hobbits and the Balrog do not exist.

Elves, fairies, nymphs, demons, etc. - all represented i ancient art, none in A-Es pantheon of mythical creatures which myust have existed because depictions of them can be found in ancient art.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:09 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so far:

Orion expressed his/her love for dragons and other mythological creatures. but gives no reason why they are mythological.

Fencer27 suggests that "many creatures of mythology were based on inaccurate interpretations of fossils found at the time".
and showed a Cyclops skull (cow skull?) and a unicorn horn (narwhal whale tusk) to illustrate his/her explanation

Demon38 point to "The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times" by Adrienne Mayor as a good reference point to back up Fencer27's explanation.
quote from the book, page 113:
to pass muster as super size heroes of the past, the remains almost certainly belonged to very large prehistoric mammals. is some non-human features where detected in fossil assemblage, they could be explained by the mythological paradigm.

and Derwood just listed other mythical creatures.


so apart from an alternative explanation to the existence of dragons (as a myth), there have been nothing presented that disproves the claim that dragons existed...

now, I only said that "two legged serpentine creature with bat-like wings" (dragons) existed because that is where the evidence points. the same with the claim that they "likely breathed fire". because that is where the evidence points.
should I ignore the sketches, eyewitness accounts, and the word of philosophers (technically they are not called scientist until the 19th century) just because the orthodox view is that dragons never existed? or the better question is: would you do it?

personal I have no objection to any of you siding with your theory, because it is a plausible explanation. despite that history points in the opposite direction.
but as evolutionists I would have expected you to side with whatever the facts pointed to.

and just to recap:
'ancients' told stories of mythical creatures. fact.
at least some of those mythical creatures where based on "inaccurate interpretations" the the world around them. fact
"two legged serpentine creature with bat-like wings" have been mentioned throughout history outside of the mainstream mythological stories. including in Bestiaries and Autobiographies of historians and philosophers. fact


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 03:33 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so apart from an alternative explanation to the existence of dragons (as a myth), there have been nothing presented that disproves the claim that dragons existed...

Well, you see, in real life, you have to support your claim with real evidence.  You haven't done that.  Fanciful myths don't count because they are just that, unsupported myths.  You've made the claim and have been unable to support it.  The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim, until you do, we don't have anything to disprove.  You're just repeating myths that have no basis in reality.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:24 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 02:33 AM on October 3, 2009 :
so apart from an alternative explanation to the existence of dragons (as a myth), there have been nothing presented that disproves the claim that dragons existed...


You can't disprove that a tiny, invisible blue unicorn that loves sugar and can move things with its mind lives under my bed. But I'm sure you can show reasonable doubt to its existence. The same thing applies to your dragon myths. While no one can disprove anything, we can have reasonable doubt to its existence as to say it doesn't exist or never happened.

The "cyclops skull" is from an elephant, or possibly a mammoth.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 5:43 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

folio 65v

quote from the Aberdeen Bestiary (12th century) Folio 66r (translated into English)
call it dracon, from this is derived its Latin name draco.
The dragon, it is said, is often drawn forth from caves into the open air, causing the air to become turbulent.
The dragon has a crest, a small mouth, and narrow blow-holes through which it breathes and puts forth its tongue. Its strength lies not in its teeth but in its tail, and it kills with a blow rather than a bite. It is free from poison. They say that it does not need poison to kill things, because it kills anything around which it wraps its tail.
From the dragon not even the elephant, with its huge size, is safe. For lurking on paths along which elephants are accustomed to pass, the dragon knots its tail around their legs and kills them by suffocation.
Dragons are born in Ethiopia and India, where it is hot all year round.


although I know this by itself would not be sufficient evidence for the existence of dragons. but I would like to know if you would consider this to come under the category of "real evidence" or a "Fanciful myth" (as Demon38 put it)?
and if you do consider this a "Fanciful myth", what criteria did you use to come to this conclusion?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 6:33 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

although I know this by itself would not be sufficient evidence for the existence of dragons. but I would like to know if you would consider this to come under the category of "real evidence" or a "Fanciful myth" (as Demon38 put it)?
and if you do consider this a "Fanciful myth", what criteria did you use to come to this conclusion?


Definitely a fanciful myth.  As to why, the same reasons i stated above.  No empirical evidence to support it.  And it comes from a book filled with such fanciful myths.  Here are a few other entries in the Aberdeen Bestiary, from here:
Aberdeen Bestiary

"15r De monocero; the monceros."
An animal similar to the unicorn with elephant feet.

"55v the phoenix"

"66r De basilisco; Of the basilisk"

Now, according to you, these supernatural animals must also have existed, they're mentioned in the Aberdeen Bestairy, after all!
 
No, I still maintain that the bestiaries of medival times contained fanciful myths  and an animal's inclusion in one is no evidence that it actually existed.  From here: Imaginary Bestiary

"A Bestiary is a collection of short descriptions about all sorts of animals, real and imaginary, birds and even rocks, accompanied by a moralising explanation. Although it deals with the natural world it was never meant to be a scientific text and should not be read as such. Some observations may be quite accurate but they are given the same weight as totally fabulous accounts. The Bestiary appeared in its present form in England in the twelfth century, as a compilation of many earlier sources, principally the Physiologus. A great deal of its charm comes from the humour and imagination of the illustrations, painted partly for pleasure but justified as a didactic tool 'to improve the minds of ordinary people, in such a way that the soul will at least perceive physically things which it has difficulty grasping mentally: that what they have difficulty comprehending with their ears, they will perceive with their eyes' (Aberdeen MS 24, f25v)."

So we see the Aberdeen was never meant to be taken as 100% acurate by it's authors.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:21 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it comes from a book filled with such fanciful myths
does this mean that the reason dragons aren't real is because they are in a book that mentions other creatures that are not real?  sounds like circular reasoning to me ^_^


anyway, dracon (dragons) are not just mentioned in the Aberdeen Bestiary. they are also mentioned in:
- the Bestiary of Anne Walsh Folio 59r
- Natural History, Book 8, ch 11. by Pliny the Elder
- De Natura Animalium, Book 6, ch 21. by Aelian
- Etymologies, Book 12, 4:4-5. by Isidore of Seville
- De proprietatibus rerum, book 18. by Bartholomaeus Anglicus
- and also Harley MS. 4751 and MS. Sloane 278 from the British Library
- and Ethiopia on the Genoese World Map is represented by a dragon. located under the image of an Elephant


and the Dragon is not the only type of winged serpent mentioned. there is also Siren's.
described by the Aberdeen Bestiary as:
white snakes, with wings, called sirens, which cover the ground faster than horses, but are also said to fly. Their is poison is so strong that if you are bitten by it you die before you feel the pain.
also to be found in:
- the Bestiary of Anne Walshe Folio 37r
- Etymologies, Book 11, 3:30-31
- De proprietatibus rerum, book 18
- The History of Herodotus. both Book 2. Chapter 75. and Book 3. Chapter 107.
- On the Nature of Animals. both Chapter 2. Verse 38. and Chapter 16. Verse 41.
- in the Bible


I fully agree with you that this information isn't empirical ( provable or verifiable by experience or experiment). but remember that does not automatic make it a fanciful myth.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 06:08 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

does this mean that the reason dragons aren't real is because they are in a book that mentions other creatures that are not real?  sounds like circular reasoning to me ^_^

Yes you're right, it isn't evidence that dragons didn't exist.  I didn't intend for it to show that.  The point is that your use of this book as an authoratative source as evidence for dragons existing is invalid.  

anyway, dracon (dragons) are not just mentioned in the Aberdeen Bestiary. they are also mentioned in:

Are these books anymore acurate than the Aberdeen Bestiary?  Any reason we should give them any consideration?  why do you think they count as evidence?

I fully agree with you that this information isn't empirical ( provable or verifiable by experience or experiment). but remember that does not automatic make it a fanciful myth.

But a fanciful myth is the starting position.  Since we have no evidence that dragons ever existed, that's were we're at.  Dragons could very well have existed for all I know (and I would be very happy if this was true), but without any solid evidence and more realistic explainations for stories in books that admit that they contain myths and animals that never existed, we have to side with skepticism and say they didn't exist.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any for living dragons throughout history.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:50 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any for living dragons throughout history.


People make extraordinary claims today about seeing UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc.  But science has to look at these claims skepticly because they lack any real evidence.

One can use the same criteria for the remarkable claims put forth in the Bible.  Unfortunately the extraordinary claims made in the Bible ARE lacking extraordinary evidence.  That is why Biblical claims are a matter left to faith.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:44 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, your last post can pretty much sum up how this thread has been progressing (and how it is likely to continue)

a fanciful myth is the starting position.  Since we have no evidence that dragons ever existed, that's were we're at.
what about all of the Bestiaries, maps, biographies and other books?

Are these books any more accurate than the Aberdeen Bestiary?  Any reason we should give them any consideration?
for one, they all agree with each other.
how many different references do you need before you will start acknowledging then?

but without any solid evidence
unfortunately I don't have a living specimen, or even a fossil.
but even in this modern age we are finding fossils of new species. but like I said, until they find one of a flying snake, I unfortunately don't have any solid, empirical evidence.


if this IS the way the thread is going to progress, then I don't see any way for me to convince you of the existence of dragons.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 01:56 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 01:56 AM on October 5, 2009 :
how many different references do you need before you will start acknowledging then?


It isn't how many there are, it is how reliable they are. People thought that vampires and werewolves existed and wrote books about them and how to deal with them, but they are obviously a combination of ignorance and wild fantasy.

Like when people die their skin goes away around their fingernails so they thought that their fingernails grew. And because of the gases in your body and natural process of decaying you become bloated like you just had a big meal and blood comes out of the sides of your mouth. So when you dig this dead person up after a week or two, vampire! Plus people have conditions where they need to constantly intake human blood to survive, and those that are light sensitive, so you can kind of see where the idea came from.

Or werewolves, there are several medical conditions where you are hairy all over and you really do look like a werewolf. There's some other stuff with werewolves but I can't recall them. Plus it was a common myth back then that evil creatures, or creatures of the devil were out at night. Lots of superstition around these time periods.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:25 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what about all of the Bestiaries, maps, biographies and other books?

You mean to say that you are proffering maps that say "Here be Dragons" as evidence that dragons actually existed? Seriously? That's your evidence. That and a bunch of books written for amusement rather than education?
unfortunately I don't have a living specimen, or even a fossil.
So no, then. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever?
if this IS the way the thread is going to progress, then I don't see any way for me to convince you of the existence of dragons.
Sheesh, imagine that! People actually demanding evidence and then when it's not forthcoming they still won't accept that dragons actually existed. Jeez.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:30 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 06:08 AM on October 4, 2009 :
it comes from a book filled with such fanciful myths
does this mean that the reason dragons aren't real is because they are in a book that mentions other creatures that are not real?  sounds like circular reasoning to me ^_^


Why do you suppose that not all the creatures mentioned are not real?

Why do you pick only some to believe in and not others?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:42 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 01:56 AM on October 5, 2009 :
if this IS the way the thread is going to progress, then I don't see any way for me to convince you of the existence of dragons.


Have you considered the thought that the dragon is used as a symbol of Satan?


Folio 65r Translation

that, after you have received the Holy Spirit, that is the spiritual, apprehensible dove, descending and remaining upon you, you are not caught outside eternity, set apart from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and that the dragon, that is, the Devil, does not kill you. For if you have the Holy Spirit, the dragon cannot cannot come near you. Take heed, therefore, O man, and stay within the catholic faith, live within it, remain steadfast within it, within the one catholic Church. Be as careful as you can that you are not caught outside the doors of that house, that the dragon, the serpent of old, does not seize you and devour you, as Judas was at once devoured by the devil and perished, as soon as he had gone forth from the Lord and his brother apostles.




Folio 65 The perindens tree

(Edited by Apoapsis 10/6/2009 at 10:20 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:56 PM on October 5, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer27, once again you provide compelling evidence for a plausible explanation. and as such I have no quarrels with what you said.
although I will point out that it doesn't actually disprove the existence of dragons. only gives an alternative explanation.



JimIrvine, my reasons for proffering a map that (figuratively) said "here be dragons" is because the 'here' was in Ethiopia.
and if you remember, the quote I gave from my earlier post (as well as in all of the other reference points I mentioned) said "Dragons are born in Ethiopia and India, where it is hot all year round".
and if that wasn't enough reason to mention the map, there also happens to be a picture of an elephant above the dragon. and the quote and references I gave also mention how the elephant is the prime target of the dragons.



Derwood
Why do you suppose that not all the creatures mentioned are not real?
I know that not all the creatures mentioned in the Bestiaries previously listed are not real because some of them ARE real.

that sentence is completely redundant. so to make things easier, here are just some of the real creatures mentioned in the Bestiaries:
lions, deer, bears, horses, ants, sheep, boars, moles, hedgehogs, ostriches, vultures, parrots, cranes, dolphins, crocodiles, whales.

Why do you pick only some to believe in and not others?
Funny, I was going to ask you that exact same question.
what makes you think that ANY of the creatures in these bestiaries are fictional?
I have absolutely no intention (I would like to make that part clear) of trying to prove the existence of a "sea monster called the flying-fish" (73r), the phoenix (55v) or unicorns (15r). because I am having a hard enough time with the Dragons.
and the main reason I am having such a hard time is because you keep stating that bestiaries mention mythical creatures, and thus are not reliable. but what makes you so sure that these creatures are mythical?

because they don't exist today? extinction would answer that question.
because they are mentioned in a book with other mythical creatures? that is just circular reasoning.
because that is what you where always taught? unfortunately that does not make you correct.



Apoapsis.
Have you considered the thought that the dragon is used as a symbol of Satan?
not only have I considered it. but I Already Knew it. and I knew it was only a matter of time before someone pointed it out.
but did you realise that other creatures where also used as symbols for biblical teaching?


Folio 45r Translation

Christ is also fittingly represented by the word 'vulture'. The fact is, if a vulture, in flight, sees a corpse, it sets itself down to feed on it, and is often overtaken by death when it descends to the dead animal from a great height.
It is right, therefore, that Christ, who was God's mediator and our redeemer, should be signified by the name 'vulture'. While remaining in the heights of his divinity, like the vulture flying on high, he saw the corpse of our mortality below and descended from heaven to the earth beneath; he deigned, indeed, to become man for our sake; and when he sought man, the living thing that had no life, he who in himself had eternal life, met his death at our hands.
But the aim of this vulture, Christ, was our resurrection, because when he had been dead for three days, he delivered us from eternal death.

Folio 45r: the vultures continued


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 03:14 AM on October 8, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 09:14 AM on October 8, 2009 : ... but what makes you so sure that these creatures are mythical?
because they don't exist today? extinction would answer that question.
because they are mentioned in a book with other mythical creatures? that is just circular reasoning.
because that is what you where always taught? unfortunately that does not make you correct.

Almost, but not until you put the arguments together properly.
1. Because they don't exist today and there is absolutely no evidence that the ever existed. No you cannot hold up a bestiary as evidence that they existed because the bestiary contains other mythical creatures. This is NOT circular reasoning in any way. You cannot take descriptions of [bany[/b] animals in a bestiary to be evidence of their existence. The evidence for the non-mythical animals mentioned in the bestiary, lies elsewhere (either the currently exist or there is strong, valid evidence that they used to exist).





-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 04:16 AM on October 8, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E
If fifty million bestiaries described Griffins, they'd still be mythical creatures.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 08:04 AM on October 9, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I already predicted someone would say that, and have already given my response

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:19 PM on October 1, 2009 :
these 'Dragons' you speak of are things of myth. next you will try and convince us that the griffin is real !
only if there is as much evidence to support the existence of the griffin as there is to support the existence of these Dragons / Cockatrice / Basilisk / Wyveren / etc


and lets recap what evidence there is to support the existence of dragons:
- the Bestiary of Anne Walsh Folio 59r and Folio 37r
- De proprietatibus rerum, book 18
- The History of Herodotus. Book 2. Chapter 75. and Book 3. Chapter 107.
- Natural History, Book 8, ch 11. by Pliny the Elder
- De Natura Animalium. both Chapter 2. Verse 38. Chapter 16. Verse 41. and Book 6, ch 21. by Claudius Aelianus
- Etymologies, Book 11, 3:30-31 and Book 12, 4:4-5. by Isidore of Seville
- De proprietatibus rerum, book 18. by Bartholomaeus Anglicus
- and also Harley MS. 4751 and MS. Sloane 278 from the British Library
- stories of Basilisks, Cockatrice and Wyvern: all from different parts of the Mediterranean, yet all sharing the same creature (but under a different name)
- a sketch of a dragon skeleton in the possession of Ingegniero Cornelio Meyer
- image of a dragon on the Bayeux Tapestry
- on the Genoese World Map
- in the Bible (mentioned as Fiery Flying Serpent) Isaiah 14:29, Isaiah 30:6 (mentioned as Fiery Serpent) Deuteronomy 8:15, Numbers 21:6-8


Vs.


evidence against the existence of dragons:
JimIrvine:
The evidence for the non-mythical animals mentioned in the bestiary, lies elsewhere
Demon38:
without any solid evidence ... we have to side with scepticism and say they didn't exist.
Derwood:
Elves, fairies, nymphs, demons, etc. - all represented in ancient art
Fencer27:
many creatures of mythology were based on inaccurate interpretations of fossils found at the time



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 10:22 PM on October 9, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

You've completely missed the point! Griffins/Dragons....  who cares?

Read your own signature....


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 05:06 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and I think you have missed the point I was trying to make.
there is more evidence FOR the existence of dragons then there is AGAINST it. inconclusive evidence albeit, but evidence none the less.

and as for my signature.
if the orthodox belief is wrong, it is still wrong.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 05:48 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No A-E, the 'evidence' that you use is NOT evidence, fairy tales are not evidence.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 1:24 PM on October 10, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me put it this way A-E...

Do you have ANY evidence for the existence of dragons OTHER THAN what has been said by your 'fifty million' fools in their bestiaries?




-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 10:35 PM on October 10, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

Your argument seems to me a parody of all creationist arguments.
Are you sincere in your position or just playing  the fool in an effort to make us all seem fools?


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 12:18 AM on October 11, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

originally the purposes of this thread was to going to be to list as many examples of dinosaur in medieval art and culture as possible. and thus try and force evolutions to provide better reasoning for stating "dinosaurs died out millions of years ago" than just 'because evolution says so'.

But as I was accumulating the information, I realised that there was quite a lot of similar depictions / descriptions of two legged, bat winged, flying serpentine creatures. The creatures we have been referring to as 'Dragons'

when I realised this the goals for this thread quickly changed. by choosing my words carefully, such as referring to this creature as a 'Dragon' rather than a 'Pterodactyl', I was able to play on peoples preconceptions. And by the time I had received the first few replies, it was clear my assumption where right.

despite being presented with evidence, albeit non-empirical and (thus) inconclusive evidence.
and despite being able to mount no evidence to the contrary. (Fencer27 did give evidence that supports an alternative explanation, but nothing that actually directly opposed the evidence for Dragons):
the evolutionists stayed narrow minded in their beliefs, siding with their preconceived ideas rather than the evidence presented. the Only evidence presented.

^_^


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 02:49 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

despite being presented with evidence, albeit non-empirical and (thus) inconclusive evidence...
rather than the evidence presented. the Only evidence presented.
Once again, what you presented was NOT evidence. If you insist on saying that it is, then this opens the door to any piece of text being used as evidence. Therefore most of these links  will count as evidence that dragons are indeed mythical and therefore do NOT exist.
by choosing my words carefully, such as referring to this creature as a 'Dragon' rather than a 'Pterodactyl',
Sorry, I don't get what you're saying here. Are you trying to imply that your images of dragons were actually early renderings of Pterodactyls? Please clarify. And if that is indeed what you are trying to imply, can you tell us what point it is that you were trying to make?
I was able to play on peoples preconceptions. And by the time I had received the first few replies, it was clear my assumption where right.

Why did you link to the definition of the word preconceptions? Did you think that we were unaware of the meaning of the word? (and even if we were, that we would be unable to look it up?)  What were your assumptions, what do you feel that our preconceptions are/were.

One final point. The onus is not on us to prove that Dragons did not exist. The onus is upon you to prove that they did (something which you have absolutely failed to do - unsurprisingly)

(Edited by JimIrvine 10/12/2009 at 12:10 PM).


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 12:01 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 02:49 AM on October 12, 2009 :
originally the purposes of this thread was to going to be to list as many examples of dinosaur in medieval art and culture as possible. and thus try and force evolutions to provide better reasoning for stating "dinosaurs died out millions of years ago" than just 'because evolution says so'.


Nobody has ever taken such a strawman position, just as no eolutionists claim that eyes started out as tumors as you indicated we did.


But as I was accumulating the information, I realised that there was quite a lot of similar depictions / descriptions of two legged, bat winged, flying serpentine creatures. The creatures we have been referring to as 'Dragons'

when I realised this the goals for this thread quickly changed. by choosing my words carefully, such as referring to this creature as a 'Dragon' rather than a 'Pterodactyl', I was able to play on peoples preconceptions. And by the time I had received the first few replies, it was clear my assumption where right.

But the renderings you supplied look nothign like pteradactyls.  Odd how these old-tyme artists could draw horses and people and birds and everything else fairly accurately yet when drawing a pteradactyl, darn it, it kept coming out looking like some crazy non-pteradactyl.


despite being presented with evidence, albeit non-empirical and (thus) inconclusive evidence.

Your evidence was impeached when it was pointed out that there are ancient tapestries and paintings and mosaics and potteries that show creatures and beings that you do not acknowledge as having actually lived (Neptune and half-horse, half-fish creatures, for example).


and despite being able to mount no evidence to the contrary.

Incorrect.

(Fencer27 did give evidence that supports an alternative explanation, but nothing that actually directly opposed the evidence for Dragons):

If you think what you presented is "evidence" for "dragons" being real, then surely you accept unicorns, pegasuses, Jovian deities, etc. as also being real.



the evolutionists stayed narrow minded in their beliefs, siding with their preconceived ideas rather than the evidence presented. the Only evidence presented.

Yes, I suppose it is narrow minded not to accept drawings and paintings as evidence for the existence of things for which there is no actual physical evidence.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:31 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which has more evidence?  Dragons or Bigfoot?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:44 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lets put it this way:

do you have any evidence that directly contradicts the evidence for Dragons? no

what reason do you have for disregarding the evidence presented? because it is not supported by other evidence (apart from what was presented)

and you still think that myth. period.
to me this looks like a narrow minded view.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:47 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:47 PM on October 12, 2009 :
lets put it this way:

do you have any evidence that directly contradicts the evidence for Dragons? no


What would that evidence look like?  How do you prove something doesn't exist?

Where is the positive evidence?  I agree that the bestiary images are evidence, but unsupported by anything else.

what reason do you have for disregarding the evidence presented? because it is not supported by other evidence (apart from what was presented)

and you still think that myth. period.
to me this looks like a narrow minded view.


I'll believe in Bigfoot when they produce some physical evidence of it, not just blurry pictures.  

There are legends of large animals in Patagonia that might be giant sloths, but I'll wait for a specimen before I think they aren't extinct.


As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Is there any evidence for dragons that is not ordinary?


(Edited by Apoapsis 10/12/2009 at 8:30 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:14 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:47 PM on October 12, 2009 :
lets put it this way:

do you have any evidence that directly contradicts the evidence for Dragons? no

What do you want? a picture of me NOT standing next to a dragon? Your logic is flawed at best.

{
what reason do you have for disregarding the evidence presented? because it is not supported by other evidence (apart from what was presented)
Because I do not agree that an image in a book with absolutely no physical evidence to support it, constitutes evidence. If it did, then evry picture that doesn't have a dragon in it, every text that doesn't mention dragons or that states or implies that dragons did not exist, would also count as evidence, therby making the evidence against dragons far, far stronger than the evidence for.

to me this looks like a narrow minded view.
And to me, your view seems simple-minded. I'm sorry, but it does. (Note, I'm not calling you simple minded, I'm calling you view of dragons simple minded.) I would alsoo point  out that didn't even answer ONE of my questions. Why?





-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 02:13 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 02:49 AM on October 12, 2009 :
originally the purposes of this thread was to going to be to list as many examples of dinosaur in medieval art and culture as possible. and thus try and force evolutions to provide better reasoning for stating "dinosaurs died out millions of years ago" than just 'because evolution says so'.


Maybe because there are no significant populations of dinosaurs past the K-T boundary dated 65,000,000 years ago. And when people did find large bones they thought they were monsters of myth, or made myth out of it.

But as I was accumulating the information, I realised that there was quite a lot of similar depictions / descriptions of two legged, bat winged, flying serpentine creatures. The creatures we have been referring to as 'Dragons'

when I realised this the goals for this thread quickly changed. by choosing my words carefully, such as referring to this creature as a 'Dragon' rather than a 'Pterodactyl', I was able to play on peoples preconceptions. And by the time I had received the first few replies, it was clear my assumption where right.


What 'pterodactyl' do you know of that can breath fire?

"my personal interpretation is:
as recently as the 1700s, there existed multiple breeds of two legged serpentine creature with bat-like wings. likely breathed fire."

Other than your fantasy myths can you back up your interpretation?

despite being presented with evidence, albeit non-empirical and (thus) inconclusive evidence.
and despite being able to mount no evidence to the contrary. (Fencer27 did give evidence that supports an alternative explanation, but nothing that actually directly opposed the evidence for Dragons):
the evolutionists stayed narrow minded in their beliefs, siding with their preconceived ideas rather than the evidence presented. the Only evidence presented.
^_^


It is impossible to disprove that there were/are any dragons. But there is no evidence to suggest that there ever were beyond those of myth and legend. It is not up to us to disprove your claim when you give no real evidence for your assertion. First you must provide credible evidence that your claims are beyond those conjured up by a schizophrenic who thinks that vampires are out to take their blood. Or a six year old kid that doesn't know the difference between fiction and non-fiction, and how both can be used in the same book for various purposes. Which is what your evidence amounts too.

As surely as fifty million will beseech us to believe in big foot, or the lock-ness monster, or even fire-breathing dragons without merit, evidence or cause up to par; it is of no more value than the drunkard fool rambling incoherent thoughts under his stained, alcoholic breath.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:22 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

or the lock-ness monster

Of course, you mean the Loch Ness monster (a.k.a. Nessie)  ;) The ch being pronounced rather like you were clearing your throat as opposed to it being a hard 'k' sound (how most English folk (incorrectly) pronounce it )


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 05:14 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
What would that evidence look like?  How do you prove something doesn't exist?
JimIrvine
What do you want? a picture of me NOT standing next to a dragon?
I do see how this could present quite a problem.

perhaps you could try and find some evidence that shows it is impossible for such a creature to exist. so not just that it didn't exist, but that it couldn't exist.


or you could focus the argument on trying to discredit what I put forward. provide evidence or examples of how what I presented is not accurate. don't just say the evidence is unsubstantiated, but try and prove it is inaccurate.
and not just the bestiaries either.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 05:59 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still no answers to the previous questions put before you?


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 06:30 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 06:30 AM on October 13, 2009 :
Still no answers to the previous questions put before you?

sorry. what questions are you referring to?
if you repeat the question for me I will endeavour to answer it in my next post


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 07:20 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 05:59 AM on October 13, 2009 :

perhaps you could try and find some evidence that shows it is impossible for such a creature to exist. so not just that it didn't exist, but that it couldn't exist.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Perhaps you could provide more positive evidence.  It is not our responsibility to prove a negative.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:33 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 1:20 PM on October 13, 2009 :
Quote from JimIrvine at 06:30 AM on October 13, 2009 :
Still no answers to the previous questions put before you?

sorry. what questions are you referring to?


Quote from JimIrvine at 6:01 PM on October 12, 2009 :
despite being presented with evidence, albeit non-empirical and (thus) inconclusive evidence...
rather than the evidence presented. the Only evidence presented.
Once again, what you presented was NOT evidence. If you insist on saying that it is, then this opens the door to any piece of text being used as evidence. Therefore most of these links  will count as evidence that dragons are indeed mythical and therefore do NOT exist.
by choosing my words carefully, such as referring to this creature as a 'Dragon' rather than a 'Pterodactyl',
Sorry, I don't get what you're saying here. Are you trying to imply that your images of dragons were actually early renderings of Pterodactyls? Please clarify. And if that is indeed what you are trying to imply, can you tell us what point it is that you were trying to make?
I was able to play on peoples preconceptions. And by the time I had received the first few replies, it was clear my assumption where right.

Why did you link to the definition of the word preconceptions? Did you think that we were unaware of the meaning of the word? (and even if we were, that we would be unable to look it up?)  What were your assumptions, what do you feel that our preconceptions are/were.

One final point. The onus is not on us to prove that Dragons did not exist. The onus is upon you to prove that they did (something which you have absolutely failed to do - unsurprisingly)

(Edited by JimIrvine 10/12/2009 at 12:10 PM).






-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:44 AM on October 13, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you trying to imply that your images of dragons were actually early renderings of Pterodactyls?
Dragons by definition are mythical creatures. Pterodactyls by definition are extinct flying reptiles.
the images I supplied are of two legged, serpentine creatures with bat-like wings. usually also with a spade-shaped fin on the end of its tail and ears / horns / head crest on its head.

my statement that prompted this question was:
"... referring to this creature as a 'Dragon' rather than a 'Pterodactyl'..."
and as already stated before, I used the term 'Dragon' so as to play on your preconceptions.
and if I chose not to use the term 'Dragon', wouldn't I use Petrodactyl? because if this creature is real, then wouldn't it fall into the category of a Pterodactyl?


Why did you link to the definition of the word preconceptions?
when I first did it, it was to draw closer attention to the word. to draw attention to that you point of view was based on beliefs rather than facts. and you have to admit that it did draw extra attention to the word.
but the reason I did it in this post was just to mess with your head ^_^

What were your assumptions, what do you feel that our preconceptions are/were.
I assumed that many, if not all, of the people who opposed my view would do so without providing evidence to support their view.
and your preconceptions are these creatures are myth. period. no evidence needed.
(technically Dragons are myth by definition. but if used that as an argument then I would just change back to the names: Basilisk, Cockatrice, Wyvern, Malabar, Narsinga, Ophies Pterotos, Fiery Flying Serpent)


this isn't one of your questions, but rather the point you gave in conclusion to your post
One final point. The onus is not on us to prove that Dragons did not exist. The onus is upon you to prove that they did
my response to this is this:
I have presented evidence. quotes from multiple (scientific) documents. quotes from the journals and other books by creditable philosophers of their time. and renderings from many different time frames and sources (coin, map, Tapestry, wood carving, etc).

now the onus is on you to either:
a) side with the evidence given
b) provide counter evidence that disagrees with the conclusion derived from the evidence given
c) provide evidence that proves the evidence already given to be inaccurate.

and if you decide to choose option d) "say the evidence isn't good enough due to lack of physical evidence (living specimen or fossil)". then I would like to point you the the rest of history
one example is how Captain Oates walked to his death in a blizzard, hoping to save his comrades on Scott's disastrous South Pole expedition in 1912. we believe this to be fact. why? because it says so in the only surviving document: Scott's diary.
I have provided not one, but many different documents. from many different people. spread out over a very large time frame. and they all agree that this winged serpentine creature existed.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 8:55 PM on October 13, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have presented evidence. quotes from multiple (scientific) documents. quotes from the journals and other books by creditable philosophers of their time. and renderings from many different time frames and sources (coin, map, Tapestry, wood carving, etc).

Yet you ignore the fact that many of the quotes you posted come from books, like the Aberdeen Bestiary radily admit they use mythological and non existent animals to aid preachers spreading the word of god.  How can you call such nonsense "evidence"?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:43 PM on October 13, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 02:55 AM on October 14, 2009 :
Are you trying to imply that your images of dragons were actually early renderings of Pterodactyls?
Dragons by definition are mythical creatures. Pterodactyls by definition are extinct flying reptiles.
the images I supplied are of two legged, serpentine creatures with bat-like wings. usually also with a spade-shaped fin on the end of its tail and ears / horns / head crest on its head.

my statement that prompted this question was:
"... referring to this creature as a 'Dragon' rather than a 'Pterodactyl'..."
and as already stated before, I used the term 'Dragon' so as to play on your preconceptions.
and if I chose not to use the term 'Dragon', wouldn't I use Petrodactyl? because if this creature is real, then wouldn't it fall into the category of a Pterodactyl?
So let's recap. Are you saying that the information that you have presented as evidence for the existence of dragons is actually evidence of the existence of Pterodactyls. If this is not the case then please clarify your position.


Why did you link to the definition of the word preconceptions?
when I first did it, it was to draw closer attention to the word. to draw attention to that you point of view was based on beliefs rather than facts. and you have to admit that it did draw extra attention to the word.
but the reason I did it in this post was just to mess with your head ^_^

What age are you? You understand that this simply makes you come across as being rather childish. It certainly doesn't add to your credibiity as a "thinker" as you claimed in your early posts.


this isn't one of your questions, but rather the point you gave in conclusion to your post
One final point. The onus is not on us to prove that Dragons did not exist. The onus is upon you to prove that they did

my response to this is this:
I have presented evidence. quotes from multiple (scientific) documents. quotes from the journals and other books by creditable philosophers of their time. and renderings from many different time frames and sources (coin, map, Tapestry, wood carving, etc).

now the onus is on you to either:
a) side with the evidence given

There is no evidence given.

b) provide counter evidence that disagrees with the conclusion derived from the evidence given
I Already have.

c) provide evidence that proves the evidence already given to be inaccurate.
I think that this point may have been made before but texts from fairy books (by that I mean beastiaries) are inherently innaccurate.

and if you decide to choose option d) "say the evidence isn't good enough due to lack of physical evidence (living specimen or fossil)". then I would like to point you the the rest of history
one example is how Captain Oates walked to his death in a blizzard, hoping to save his comrades on Scott's disastrous South Pole expedition in 1912. we believe this to be fact. why? because it says so in the only surviving document: Scott's diary.

Witnesses who saw them depart, nobody saw them again, it is the most likely scenario and unless you can provide a more likely explanation, it is the only explanation.

I have provided not one, but many different documents. from many different people. spread out over a very large time frame. and they all agree that this winged serpentine creature existed.
So if we provide many different documents state that a half man, half horse existed would your mind then accept that a centaur actually existed?


What were your assumptions, what do you feel that our preconceptions are/were.
I assumed that many, if not all, of the people who opposed my view would do so without providing evidence to support their view.
and your preconceptions are these creatures are myth. period. no evidence needed.
(technically Dragons are myth by definition. snip
End of argument.



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 02:05 AM on October 14, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so let's recap. Are you saying that the information that you have presented as evidence for the existence of dragons is actually evidence of the existence of Pterodactyls.
the evidence I presented is for the existence of a creature that has been referred to in history by many names. including Dracon, which is where we get the word Dragon from.
and if this creature is real then it would fall into the category of a Pterodactyl. would it not?

so, to answer your question of whether the creature depicted is a Dragon or a Pterodactyl. the answer is, in a way, both.


a) side with the evidence given
There is no evidence given.
none that you seem willing to acknowledge.

b) provide counter evidence that disagrees with the conclusion derived from the evidence given
I Already have.
where? what was it?

c) provide evidence that proves the evidence already given to be inaccurate.
I think that this point may have been made before but texts from fairy books (by that I mean bestiaries) are inherently innaccurate.
yes it was.
and then I pointed out that the reason for its inherently inaccuracy was circular reasoning.
Demon38 agreed that it was circular reasoning.
and then everyone continued not to acknowledge the Bestiaries because they wanted more evidence.
(and little if no reference was made to the other evidence I had already presented)

So if we provide many different documents state that a half man, half horse existed would your mind then accept that a centaur actually existed?
do you have such documents? if not then this is a rhetorical question that has no relevance

(technically Dragons are myth by definition. snip
End of argument.
can't help but notice you snipped off the rest of the quote. I'll fill in the blanks for you
if you used that as an argument then I would just change back to the names: Basilisk, Cockatrice, Wyvern, Malabar, Narsinga, Ophies Pterotos, Fiery Flying Serpent
or the word Dracon, which can be translated into English as ... Dragon



Demon38
many of the quotes you posted come from books, like the Aberdeen Bestiary radily admit they use mythological and non existent animals to aid preachers spreading the word of god.
the last time we went over this you readily agreed that the reason you stated for some of the creatures being mythical is circular reasoning.
if you have other reasons for why some of the creatures are considered mythical apart from "because there are other mythical creatures" than I am willing to hear them.
or other reasons why the bestiaries are not reliable other than that they supposedly contain mythical creatures.


and finally: @ everyone
I have presented more evidence than just the bestiaries!


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 03:14 AM on October 14, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the evidence I presented is for the existence of a creature that has been referred to in history by many names. including Dracon, which is where we get the word Dragon from.
and if this creature is real then it would fall into the category of a Pterodactyl. would it not?

so, to answer your question of whether the creature depicted is a Dragon or a Pterodactyl. the answer is, in a way, both.

Actually, my question was NOT
whether the creature depicted is a Dragon or a Pterodactyl
please stop manipulating what I say. My question was
Are you saying that the information that you have presented as evidence for the existence of dragons is actually evidence of the existence of Pterodactyls.
So, once again, clarification is required on what you said. Are you trying to imply that the dragons that are referred to in your texts were in fact, pterodactyls? (I reckon that that is pretty much a yes / no question, let's see how you twist around it)
where? what was it?


Once again, what you presented was NOT evidence. If you insist on saying that it is, then this opens the door to any piece of text being used as evidence. Therefore most of these links  will count as evidence that dragons are indeed mythical and therefore do NOT exist.
Scan back up to get the active link.
Demon38 agreed that it was circular reasoning.
Are you sure about that? Or are you possibly mis-understanding/misrepresenting what Demon said? Show us where (you think) he agreed that it was circular reasoning.
do you have such documents? if not then this is a rhetorical question that has no relevance
Evidence or not it would have relevance and if you can't see that then you are most definitely not the thinker that you imply.
A simple link  will point you to the beginnings of resources that would show you representations and texts referring to that which you ask for. So again I ask, do you believe in centaurs?

can't help but notice you snipped off the rest of the quote. I'll fill in the blanks for you

No need to fill in the blanks. Your argument is that Dragons exist. Later in the thread, you state yourself that dragons are mythical. All other arguments are moot beyond this. Feel free to restate your position if you want (without asserting that dragons exist of course)
I have presented more evidence than just the bestiaries!
Are you willing, based on the arguments thus far, to accept that the representations in the bestiaries are not acceptable evidence. (We'll get to the rest of your 'evidence' once we have dealt with the beastiary)


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 06:53 AM on October 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anti-Evolution
perhaps they could breath fire. perhaps the such powers where invented to make them more interesting.
Do you see now, Fencer, why i say that knowing that life has no purpose allows for better understanding of the natural world?
and Derwood just listed other mythical creatures.
Er... He did more than that. He also said "The incredible thing is how folks who put forth such notions suddenly dismiss the exact same type of evidence when such evidence runs coutner to their preferred myths."

Lying about what's written for all to see is unwise, if you care about being believed.

And if you don't care about that, should we care about what you have to say?

so apart from an alternative explanation to the existence of dragons (as a myth), there have been nothing presented that disproves the claim that dragons existed...
Another creationist who can't tell evidence from proof. No scientific thought, and no shocker.

now, I only said that "two legged serpentine creature with bat-like wings" (dragons) existed because that is where the evidence points.
derwood
The incredible thing is how folks who put forth such notions suddenly dismiss the exact same type of evidence when such evidence runs coutner to their preferred myths.


and the quote and references I gave also mention how the elephant is the prime target of the dragons.
Easy experiment: make a realistic model of a dragon (whatever version you happen to believe in), show it to an elephant and see if it runs for its life.

Surely Yahweh must have provided it with an instinct to do so.

I have absolutely no intention (I would like to make that part clear) of trying to prove the existence of a "sea monster called the flying-fish" (73r), the phoenix (55v) or unicorns (15r). because I am having a hard enough time with the Dragons.
Yes, because you can't think scientifically. You have to look at the evidence. If one conclusion gives you a hard time it sounds reasonable to drop it.

apoapsis
I'll believe in Bigfoot when they produce some physical evidence of it, not just blurry pictures.
What if Bigfoot is blurry?

JimIrvine
anti-evolutionist
lets put it this way:

do you have any evidence that directly contradicts the evidence for Dragons? no
What do you want? a picture of me NOT standing next to a dragon?
Hahaha! That was hilarious!

Actually the fact that we don't have physical evidence that flying snakes ever existed is pretty good evidence that humans never saw one.

The fact that no animal we know of breaths fire is evidence that such a thing never happened (i didn't say "proof").

The fact that every animal we ever found fits in the phylogenetic tree of life is evidence that they always have, and always will. Most depictions of dragons don't.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:35 PM on October 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



-I saw a weird winged creature!
-Woah! Did it breath fire?
-Er... Yeah, why not...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:46 PM on October 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 7:46 PM on October 15, 2009 :


-I saw a weird winged creature!
-Woah! Did it breath fire?
-Er... Yeah, why not...



- And um, what happened?  Did it scare you?

- SCARE me? Um well... (realizes that admitting it did would make him look wimpy).. Nah - in fact, Um...  I had to fight it off!

- No kidding!  You fought off a weird winged creature that breathed fire???

- You betcha, uh huh.  And it had HUGE pointy teeth, and tried to control my mind!

- Wow - you are the greatest warrior in our clan!

- Uh huh....  That I am.  Now write stories about me.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:43 AM on October 16, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.