Is satan a Dragon? Are Dragons Dinosaurs?

originally posted by: Candytripn

Quoting a single book of fiction isn't a very good way to prove a point.

"There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat"

-Herodotus 5th century BC [Herodotus, Historiae (1850) Henry Clay p. 75-76]


"Here are found snakes and huge serpents, ten paces in length and ten spans in girth (meaning 50 ft. long and 100 inch circumference). At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are of smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long"

-Marco Polo 13th century AD [The Travels of Marco Polo (1961) New York; Signet Classic, p 158-159]


"his serpent (or dragon as some call it) is reputed to be nine feete, or rather more, in length, and shaped almost in the form of an axletree of a cart: a quantitie of thickness in the middest, and somewhat smaller at both endes. The former part, which he shootes forth as a necke, is supposed to be an elle long; with a white ring, as it were, of scales about it. The scales along his back seem to be blackish, and so much as is discovered under his belie, appeareth to be red... it is likewise discovered to have large feete, but the eye may there be deceived, for some suppose that serpents have no feete ... [The dragon] rids away (as we call it) as fast as a man can run. His food [rabbits] is thought to be; for the most part, in a conie-warren, which he much frequents ...There are likewise upon either side of him discovered two great bunches so big as a large foote-ball, and (as some thinke) will in time grow to wings, but God, I hope, will (to defend the poor people in the neighbourhood) that he shall be destroyed before he grows to fledge"

-Sussex 1614: [A Discourse Relating a Strange and Monstrous Serpent or Dragon lately discovered, and yet living, to the great Annoyance and divers Slaughters of both Men and Cattell....]


"There be some dragons which have wings and no feet, some again have both feet and wings, and some neither feet nor wings, but are only distinguished from the common sort of Serpents by the comb growing upon their heads, and the beard under their cheeks. Gyllius, Pierius, and Gervinus . . . do affirm that a Dragon is of a black colour, the belly somewhat green, and very beautiful to behold, having a treble row of teeth in their mouths upon every jaw, and with most bright and clear-seeing eyes, which caused the Poets to say in their writings that these dragons are the watchful keepers of Treasures. They have also two dewlaps growing under their chin, and hanging down like a beard, which are of a red colour: their bodies are set all over with very sharp scales, and over their eyes stand certain flexible eyelids. When they gape wide with their mouth, and thrust forth their tongue, their teeth seem very much to resemble the teeth of wild Swine: And their necks have many times gross thick hair growing upon them, much like unto the bristles of a wild Boar.
Their mouth, (especially of the most tamable Dragons) is but little, not much bigger than a pipe, through which they draw in their breath, for they wound not with their mouth, but with their tails, only beating with them when they are angry. But the Indian, Ethiopian, and Phrygian dragons have very wide mouths, through which they often swallow in whole fowls and beasts. Their tongue is cloven as it were double, and the Investigators of nature do say that they have fifteen teeth of a side. The males have combs on their heads, but the females have none, and they are likewise distinguished by their beards"

-Historie of Foure-Footed Beasts (1658) by Edward Topsell


"The woods around Penllin Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike. An aged inhabitant of Penllyne, who died a few years ago, said that in his boyhood the winged serpents were described as very beautiful. They were coiled when in repose, and "looked as if they were covered with jewels of all sorts. Some of them had crests sparkling with all the colours of the rainbow". When disturbed they glided swiftly, "sparkling all over," to their hiding places. When angry, they "flew over people's heads, with outspread wings, bright, and sometimes with eyes too, like the feathers in a peacock's tail". He said it was "no old story invented to frighten children", but a real fact. His father and uncle had killed some of them, for they were as bad as foxes for poultry. The old man attributed the extinction of the winged serpents to the fact that they were "terrors in the farmyards and coverts" "

-Trevelyan, M (1909) Folk-Lore and Folk Stories of Wales


"'...about the marches of Italy, within a meadow, was sometime a serpent of wonderful and right marvellous greatness, right hideous and fearful. For first he had the head greater than the head of a calf. Secondly, he had a neck of the length of an ass, and his body made after the likeness of a dog. And his tail was wonderfully great, thick and long, without comparison to any other"

-Caxton, Win, 1484. Aesop. folio 138 (Original copy at Royal Library at Windsor Castle)


"'Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.'

(After an unsuccessful attempt by local archers to kill the beast, due to its impenetrable hide)

'...in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen.'"

-The Giant Reptile at Bures in Suffolk (1405) [from: British Dragons, BT Batsford Ltd. 1980 p 60]

a reply to: Wolfenz

Im only going along with superstitions being imposed on the possibility that there could of been a few rogues capable of cannibalism during the prime of the native american tribes. Now if they had increased strength because of some curse put on by some bad spirit, or they were actually crazy enough to forget their limits to be viewed demonic could be its own story.

And their are little mountains here and there in Ontario, the closest one I can think of is the Niagara Escarpment which spans a fair of enough distance, but the rockies are the most prominent in the whole country. Im assuming crazed hermits and bush people willing to eat other humans, which is common other parts of the world.

And like other various mythologies about birds causing lightning and thunder storms, the thunder bird appears to be more singular, great spirit.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Wolfenz

Im only going along with superstitions being imposed on the possibility that there could of been a few rogues capable of cannibalism during the prime of the native american tribes. Now if they had increased strength because of some curse put on by some bad spirit, or they were actually crazy enough to forget their limits to be viewed demonic could be its own story.

And their are little mountains here and there in Ontario, the closest one I can think of is the Niagara Escarpment which spans a fair of enough distance, but the rockies are the most prominent in the whole country. Im assuming crazed hermits and bush people willing to eat other humans, which is common other parts of the world.

And like other various mythologies about birds causing lightning and thunder storms, the thunder bird appears to be more singular, great spirit.

LOL .. All in the Head .. Perhaps ..

Little Mountains yeah ... Im referring the Valley.. where those legends are..

its not a Wrong Turn ... Episode.. LOL

I heard a Few of those legends

Mostly Little People and Shape Shifting , and of Course, Champ Our Version of Nessie from Loc ness Scotland


The Word Thunder Bird is that Sound of their Wing Flapping sounding like thunder ..

the Biggest Bird's we have Here is The Crane .. and Osprey ...

a reply to: wolfenz

I was more or less under the impression that the Thunder Bird ether bieng some great sky spirit, or it being an actual flesh and bone cryptid?

a reply to: cooperton

And these were supposed to be dinosaurs?

Anyone can assemble a collection of tall tales from the past. Doesn't mean they ever happened.

Not one contemporary account among the lot, unless you count Herodotus's skeletons.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: OptimusPrimeOne

Like I've said many times, Amateur hour never ends here at ATS.

Your avatar is living proof of that statement.

a reply to: Lysergic

Are you decently versed in relativity? time dilation??? You do understand that ancient man solely referred to time as a period of observation of celestial phenomena right? Not time as we theoretically think of it today????

Well, allow me to postulate something to you then... Let's say that space is finite, not infinite (makes no sense anyways) and as the universe expands it is actually pulling and stretching space/time.

What then happens to someone experiencing time as they travel along space/time that is being stretched???

So, you see, the earth is not required to have traveled around the sun 65 million times since the extinction of the dinosaurs for a 65 million year equivalency to have occurred because the farther back you go in recorded time, the slower time would have actually been moving because space/time would have been more compressed as it is in a deep gravity well...

Not all people that distrust the scientific paradigm are spoon fed morons, just like many who DO trust the scientific paradigms ARE....

Jaden

p.s. Also remember that all radiometric dating, which is useless when talking about dinosaurs anyways since potassium argon dating is only good for a few hundred thousand years and carbon 14 dating is only good for a few tens of thousands of years, is reliant on the theoretical time construct, not the observed time construct as was shown in the atomic clock experiments which supported the theory of time dilation in the first place.

Interesting thread... the trolls are out in force on this one.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Lysergic

Are you decently versed in relativity? time dilation??? You do understand that ancient man solely referred to time as a period of observation of celestial phenomena right? Not time as we theoretically think of it today????

Oh boy, someone's about to try and fit baseless myths into a modern scientific context...

Well, allow me to postulate something to you then... Let's say that space is finite, not infinite (makes no sense anyways) and as the universe expands it is actually pulling and stretching space/time.

What then happens to someone experiencing time as they travel along space/time that is being stretched???

So, you see, the earth is not required to have traveled around the sun 65 million times since the extinction of the dinosaurs for a 65 million year equivalency to have occurred because the farther back you go in recorded time, the slower time would have actually been moving because space/time would have been more compressed as it is in a deep gravity well...

The "let me pull something out of my @@@ by misconstruing science with a healthy dose of made up stuff" approach to understanding the natural world.

Not all people that distrust the scientific paradigm are spoon fed morons

Always morons? No. Ignorant? Yes.

p.s. Also remember that all radiometric dating, which is useless when talking about dinosaurs anyways since potassium argon dating is only good for a few hundred thousand years

Is it a coincidence that this happens to be a popular intellectually dishonest creationist talking point?

Read this:
en.wikipedia.org...

and carbon 14 dating is only good for a few tens of thousands of years,

Show me a single academic who uses C14 dating to estimate the age of ancient fossils.

is reliant on the theoretical time construct, not the observed time construct as was shown in the atomic clock experiments which supported the theory of time dilation in the first place.

Ah, a callback to the "Let me pull something out of my @@@ by misconstruing science with a healthy dose of made up stuff" arguement.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
p.s. Also remember that all radiometric dating, which is useless when talking about dinosaurs anyways since potassium argon dating is only good for a few hundred thousand years and carbon 14 dating is only good for a few tens of thousands of years, is reliant on the theoretical time construct, not the observed time construct as was shown in the atomic clock experiments which supported the theory of time dilation in the first place.

Um... Potassium argon dating (K-Ar dating) is good for up to 5 million years ago. Where ever did you get the claim that it is only good up to a few hundred thousand years ago? In fact, that is the minimum it is good for. You can't date anything younger than 200,000 years ago with K-Ar dating.

Also, no one dates fossils with C-14 dating. That's stupid.

Let me add one thing as well. Carbon 14 dating, as an example, becomes unreliable more than a few thousand years out. This actually supports the theory that space/time compression occurs in an expanding universe because it's not that it becomes unreliable, it's that theoretical time is constantly shifting as space/time is stretched so you're dealing with differences in observed time and theoretical time which causes apparent unreliability, not actual unreliability.

Jaden

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: wolfenz

I was more or less under the impression that the Thunder Bird ether bieng some great sky spirit, or it being an actual flesh and bone cryptid?

Actually conciderd Both ...

but According to Wiki LOL...

Common depictions Across many North American indigenous cultures, the thunderbird carries many of the same characteristics. It is described as a large bird, capable of creating storms and thundering while it flies. Clouds are pulled together by its wingbeats, the sound of thunder made by its wings clapping, sheet lightning the light flashing from its eyes when it blinks, and individual lightning bolts made by the glowing snakes that it carries around with it. In masks, it is depicted as multi-colored, with two curling horns, and, often, teeth within its beak.

^^^^ Sounds Like A Dragon to me ... ^^^^ Curing Horns and Teech within its beak ??

Or a PetroSaur


Now how old is this Tale ?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Masterjaden
p.s. Also remember that all radiometric dating, which is useless when talking about dinosaurs anyways since potassium argon dating is only good for a few hundred thousand years and carbon 14 dating is only good for a few tens of thousands of years, is reliant on the theoretical time construct, not the observed time construct as was shown in the atomic clock experiments which supported the theory of time dilation in the first place.

Um... Potassium argon dating (K-Ar dating) is good for up to 5 million years ago. Where ever did you get the claim that it is only good up to a few hundred thousand years ago? In fact, that is the minimum it is good for. You can't date anything younger than 200,000 years ago with K-Ar dating.

Also, no one dates fossils with C-14 dating. That's stupid.

That's your argument? So now 5 million years is good at dating dinosaurs?? Fossils aren't directly date-able at all, as they are fossils...

I was going off of memory, I didn't run to wikipedia to check. That's not even close to a rebuttal of my point though...so try again.

Jaden

a reply to: GetHyped

You go right ahead swallowing the paradigms hook line and sinker...I'll think for myself... I used to be in that camp too until I started really looking into the actual evidence behind many of the paradigms and found so many logical loop holes that it's laughable...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
That's your argument? So now 5 million years is good at dating dinosaurs?? Fossils aren't directly date-able at all, as they are fossils...

I didn't say that it was. I just said that it is accurate for way longer than a few hundred thousand years. There are other dating methods you can use to go back further than 5 millions years. Uranium-Lead dating can go back 4.5 billion years.

I was going off of memory, I didn't run to wikipedia to check. That's not even close to a rebuttal of my point though...so try again.

Jaden

Well CLEARLY your memory is flawed. It's always good to confirm your information with a source before saying it. As for rebutting your point, your entire argument is flawed since you based it off of your flawed memory. You should go reattempt it. This time with some actual studying of the science. Maybe post some sources along with your claims too so it doesn't look like you are talking out your ass.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Lysergic

Are you decently versed in relativity? time dilation???

Funny that people say you're pulling something out of your ass when you say this... For those of you who don't know what he is talking about, a good book would be "evolution of physics" by Einstein and Infeld, or checkout the Lorenz transformation via google. This dematerializes the old ideas (Newtonian view) of physics, yet these new ideas still have flaws.

It is time (pun intended) we get out of a material-restrained mindset.

Also, everyone should really consider the amount of inconceivable variables that coincide with dating things older than written historical records. Don't be part of the herd, dig deeper than wiki.

originally posted by: wolfenz

Common depictions Across many North American indigenous cultures, the thunderbird carries many of the same characteristics. It is described as a large bird, capable of creating storms and thundering while it flies.

The thunderbird was given its name because it would show up whenever there was a thunderstorm, so by correlation, the indigenous people thought it was causing the thunder. Hence the name. This:

“The thunderbird appears in many Indian tales and Indian art work. Its description is very much like one of the prehistoric flying reptiles that flapped its way through the skies in the days of the dinosaurs.”

-Geis, D., Dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals, Grosset & Dunlap, New York, p. 10, 1972.

“One time Thunderbird got a big whale in his talons and carried him to Beaver Prairie and ate him there. The whale fought very hard before he was killed. Thunderbird and Whale fought so very hard that they pulled up the trees by their roots. And no trees have ever grown in that place to this day.”

-Tales From the Hoh and Quileute” in Journal of American Folklore 46:320, 1933

“We showed the Indians pictures of pterodactyls and such and they said, ‘Yes’, that had to be the giant bat. For them it is not a myth or legend, but a true story of their past that has been handed down through the years.”

etc, etc...
Good find

originally posted by: Masterjaden
Let me add one thing as well. Carbon 14 dating, as an example, becomes unreliable more than a few thousand years out.

Show me a single academic who suggests otherwise.

This actually supports the theory that space/time compression occurs in an expanding universe

Not in the slightest.

because it's not that it becomes unreliable, it's that theoretical time is constantly shifting as space/time is stretched so you're dealing with differences in observed time and theoretical time which causes apparent unreliability, not actual unreliability.

All you've shown is your utter lack of understanding of physics

a reply to: Masterjaden

Ah yes, the old anti-intellectual screed of "my ignorance is just as valid as scientific knowledge". No wonder you believe fanciful tales of dragons and giants.

originally posted by: cooperton
I Appreciate you reading the link, although I insist you read it with a non-biased point of view.

I did.

The Ica Stones are interesting, especially since he admitted that he was lying about admitting it was a forgery, some interesting stuff going on here. He quit his medical career for these stones, to leave your life for a forgery would be pretty ambitious. Funny though, he did not theorize that dinosaurs were younger, but that humans were hundreds of millions of years old. I'll check out your video and get back to you

They're fake. For more reasons than just the admittance. Which came from two peasants, not the doctor.