The Creation Museum
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
I cannot give you sources right now but I was watching the Discovery channel (I'm not positive but I think they were discussing the same topic- dragons and ancient civilization) and they were at a ancient city where near by the earth was littered with dinosaur bones. It had to do with the soil in that region. This ancient civilization was exposed to these bones and even made tools from them.
No, I am PERFECTLY fine, I simply want to give people a dose of their own medicine. You see people constantly running around here typing madness and jumping to conclusions, but it comes a time when you take the gloves off, all bets are off, and you get dirty. Normally, this is something I DON'T do, unless provoked, but a couple of people around here have it coming. But, since you came at me real, and because I do respect your opinions, I'll try to keep it clean.
it may not have been your intention to imply it, but the structure and wording of your post did.
when you write a paragraph about humans being depicted battling dinosaurs in relation to the defense of man living with dinosaurs, then follow that up with a seemingly rhetorical question about cultures depictions of dragons; expect people to feel that you implied, that because of cultural references to dragons, men lived at the same time as dinosaurs.
When you typed that, one was. You fashion yourself as a learned person with historical knowledge, i believed it to an extent anyway. If that’s the case, then it is a stupid question.
cool down there kindergarden, it’ll be ok
reference to mythological tales which were a way to explain the existence of the bones of dinosaurs
in a past thread that hasn’t been linked or even mentioned in THIS thread until now. so it hasn't been relevant to the discussion
from what I remember of the deer-woman myth she’s a shape-shifting “woman” who has a female human upper body and the lower body of a deer. Similar to a Centaur or Satyr in Greek myth. Maybe you’re saying that a horse and a deer’s lower bodies/hind quarters aren’t similar?
neither do dragons. but they appear in enough to make my point. And they appear in near all, if not all, cultures that dragons do.
when you write a paragraph about humans being depicted battling dinosaurs in relation to the defense of man living with dinosaurs, then follow that up with a seemingly rhetorical question about cultures depictions of dragons; expect people to feel that you implied, that because of cultural references to dragons, men lived at the same time as dinosaurs.
When you typed that, one was. You fashion yourself as a learned person with historical knowledge, i believed it to an extent anyway. If that’s the case, then it is a stupid question.
cool down there kindergarden, it’ll be ok
reference to mythological tales which were a way to explain the existence of the bones of dinosaurs
in a past thread that hasn’t been linked or even mentioned in THIS thread until now. so it hasn't been relevant to the discussion
from what I remember of the deer-woman myth she’s a shape-shifting “woman” who has a female human upper body and the lower body of a deer. Similar to a Centaur or Satyr in Greek myth. Maybe you’re saying that a horse and a deer’s lower bodies/hind quarters aren’t similar?
neither do dragons. but they appear in enough to make my point. And they appear in near all, if not all, cultures that dragons do.
Well, if you copy what someone does exactly, of course you're going to get the same fuckin result bro, that's common sense. If I stick my dick in a blender, at the same angle, position, length, as someone else and it's on the same amount of time, it's probably going to be similar in results. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, or smart, or truth or any of the above.
All I'm doing here is playing devil's advocate. Although I do think that science tries to explain things that can't be explained sometimes. Science does not have all the answers and they never will. Now as far as creationism goes, that's a crock of shit. If the Universe and everything in it that makes it whole="God" then science has already proved what God is. Energy, at it's purest form (the brightest fuckin light you couldn't ever look at). My thought process has been changing lately, and I'm not sure why. I'm just looking at it from a different view point now. And I stray from the word "god" because people don't fucking understand shit and would completely misunderstand me if I ever said anything about God, cause most people think it's a person-type thing in the clouds, or in some realm watching us, which is childesh and naive.
Now, energy, which cannot ever be destroyed, it's always recycled, in a big circular motion....That's about as close to any kind of "god" there would be, in my opinion. I just think the word "god" is fucking stupid, cause nobody has the same definition, and that's the point of using a specific word. It has lost it's meaning, which I don't know what it was back in the day....But as far as I'm concerned, science is not the end all, say all, final lap of the way our world and universe work. Either that, or we just haven't developed the technology to discover things like that. Now I'm just rambling and confusing myself, so I'm done...
Here is the original post:
Where does the wording and structure of the post imply what you are claiming? Here it is I am replying to Soberious, and I tell him the pics are sick, and that I need to find the pics I was referring to that show humans hunting dinosaurs. After that, I make a break and proceed to ask a question as to why every race on the globe has a "dragon", and it can be noted that I described this ordeal as "tripped out". So, with that being said, WHERE IS IT IMPLIED THAT I AM SAYING THEY EXISTED? I AM saying people across the globe have versions of dragons, that is the ONLY claim that is being made. As to their existance, that is NOT claimed because they may all have versions of the same MYTH.
Now, you are grasping for straws. You appear to have a functioning brain, but why you continue to draw out such madness is unknown to me. Listen, I made a statement. I started a NEW statement, described a situation and asked a question. If ANYONE thought anything else they are reading too deep, are looking for a confrontation with me (bring it), or they are dumb. No other choice exists. My question was asked in hopes of getting more people to talk about why dragons are a common theme in human culture, and to possibly get an answer.
?!?!?!
Again, how is it a stupid question, when I just gave you a DIFFERENT example of how/why dragons exist in every culture. Could it be possible that at one time all humans existed in a central location, dragons were a myth, and due to humans migrating each person took with him his own dragon? Possible, and since I do not know the origins of the dragons I am asking WHY. Please, son, start reading what the hell is posted instead of trying to live up to the cold blooded moniker. Save that shit for someone else.
Again, thats what I thought.
Yet these ancient people knew exactly how these creatures looked and exactly how they walked/stood by examining bone fragments.....ok. Now, is your claim that they were referencing mythological tales rooted in any historical study? Please, tell us what mythological story the pottery is trying to convey.
The fact that you are jumping to conclusions should not have been relevant yet here we are...
If I feel like digging up the link I will. The point I am trying to convey to you is that I am not saying dragons and dinosaurs are NOT synonymous. But, what I am saying NOW is that several cultures have BOTH dragons AND dinosaurs and the two are DISTINCT, and both the Chinese and Japanese are examples.
So, if no one was saying anything about them being teh same or not being the same, why are you trying to make it an issue with me?
Wordsmith it all you like, but the fact is you were making the claim that these people had CENTAURS. A centaur is a certain type of creature in mythology. Now you are attempting to save your pathetic claim, by posing a rhetorical question in hopes of baiting me. Sorry, it is not going to happen. The people you mentioned do NOT have CENTAURS. Are they similar? Who knows? I am not familiar with the myth you are referring to, but a centaur is a half human and half horse. A centaur is not a half human half deer, and since centaurs are not half human/half deer these people do NOT have centaurs. Something else? Yes. Centaurs? No.
What culture/race does not have a dragon or dragon like monster?
Where does the wording and structure of the post imply what you are claiming? Here it is I am replying to Soberious, and I tell him the pics are sick, and that I need to find the pics I was referring to that show humans hunting dinosaurs. After that, I make a break and proceed to ask a question as to why every race on the globe has a "dragon", and it can be noted that I described this ordeal as "tripped out". So, with that being said, WHERE IS IT IMPLIED THAT I AM SAYING THEY EXISTED? I AM saying people across the globe have versions of dragons, that is the ONLY claim that is being made. As to their existance, that is NOT claimed because they may all have versions of the same MYTH.
Now, you are grasping for straws. You appear to have a functioning brain, but why you continue to draw out such madness is unknown to me. Listen, I made a statement. I started a NEW statement, described a situation and asked a question. If ANYONE thought anything else they are reading too deep, are looking for a confrontation with me (bring it), or they are dumb. No other choice exists. My question was asked in hopes of getting more people to talk about why dragons are a common theme in human culture, and to possibly get an answer.
?!?!?!
Again, how is it a stupid question, when I just gave you a DIFFERENT example of how/why dragons exist in every culture. Could it be possible that at one time all humans existed in a central location, dragons were a myth, and due to humans migrating each person took with him his own dragon? Possible, and since I do not know the origins of the dragons I am asking WHY. Please, son, start reading what the hell is posted instead of trying to live up to the cold blooded moniker. Save that shit for someone else.
Again, thats what I thought.
Yet these ancient people knew exactly how these creatures looked and exactly how they walked/stood by examining bone fragments.....ok. Now, is your claim that they were referencing mythological tales rooted in any historical study? Please, tell us what mythological story the pottery is trying to convey.
The fact that you are jumping to conclusions should not have been relevant yet here we are...
If I feel like digging up the link I will. The point I am trying to convey to you is that I am not saying dragons and dinosaurs are NOT synonymous. But, what I am saying NOW is that several cultures have BOTH dragons AND dinosaurs and the two are DISTINCT, and both the Chinese and Japanese are examples.
So, if no one was saying anything about them being teh same or not being the same, why are you trying to make it an issue with me?
Wordsmith it all you like, but the fact is you were making the claim that these people had CENTAURS. A centaur is a certain type of creature in mythology. Now you are attempting to save your pathetic claim, by posing a rhetorical question in hopes of baiting me. Sorry, it is not going to happen. The people you mentioned do NOT have CENTAURS. Are they similar? Who knows? I am not familiar with the myth you are referring to, but a centaur is a half human and half horse. A centaur is not a half human half deer, and since centaurs are not half human/half deer these people do NOT have centaurs. Something else? Yes. Centaurs? No.
What culture/race does not have a dragon or dragon like monster?
I have a feeling we're going to end up debating definitions over anything. But there are things that science can't explain, like people all of a sudden not having cancer or tumors doing away, I'm sorry, but the body doesn't just magically destroy cancerous cells that have been killing you for years, months, whatever.
I guess I'm in another transitional period on my ideas and thought process.
And what's the rolling eyes face for? You know it's true! If I right a recipe, only a fucking RETARD (not mentally challenged, just a stupid mother fucker) couldn't follow it.
I guess I'm in another transitional period on my ideas and thought process.
And what's the rolling eyes face for? You know it's true! If I right a recipe, only a fucking RETARD (not mentally challenged, just a stupid mother fucker) couldn't follow it.
As I stated, Science is simply the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. If a tumor suddenly disappears like you claim, this isn’t because science cannot explain it; it simply means there is missing data. If all of the data was there then yes, science could explain what happened. Perhaps it was the use of a special herb that the patient has been eating unknowingly to the doctors or whatever. Just because a certain phenomenon goes unexplained, does not mean it is unexplainable.
Again I ask you, what other means are available other than science to explain things? Could doctors break out a bible to try to figure out why the cancer disappeared? Maybe contact a witch doctor in Jamaica?
The rolled eyes were in part because of the example you used and in part because science doesn’t work that way. It’s not like giving someone a recipe and saying “here, follow these instructions.” A scientific theory has to be tested, over and over in different controlled environments in order for it to be considered a scientific theory. If they are consistent and no contradictions exist, then it is a Scientific Theory. Take Evolution for example; thousands upon thousands of different scientific experiments have been conducted over the years, none of which have contradicted the theory. Scientists don’t simply follow a man’s recipe; they look for errors, test it in different environments with new elements added, etc.
Again I ask you, what other means are available other than science to explain things? Could doctors break out a bible to try to figure out why the cancer disappeared? Maybe contact a witch doctor in Jamaica?
The rolled eyes were in part because of the example you used and in part because science doesn’t work that way. It’s not like giving someone a recipe and saying “here, follow these instructions.” A scientific theory has to be tested, over and over in different controlled environments in order for it to be considered a scientific theory. If they are consistent and no contradictions exist, then it is a Scientific Theory. Take Evolution for example; thousands upon thousands of different scientific experiments have been conducted over the years, none of which have contradicted the theory. Scientists don’t simply follow a man’s recipe; they look for errors, test it in different environments with new elements added, etc.
All I'm saying is, humans catagorize things so that they can understand them. That does not make it truth or fact. The way we know the world, may not be how the world and universe really are, that's just all we can see right now.
And yes, science is like a recipe. You have the intructions of how to do the shit, and if you follow it exactly how someone else did it, you will obviously get the same results. You just have to have competant people doing it. If I give you a chocolate cookie recipe, and you follow it EXACLTLY how I tell you, you'll get the same cookies as me.
But no, I can't think of another means to explain things, except for my own personal theories based on my personal experiences and observations about the world, universe, society, etc.
I'm not saying the Bible is a reliable source of information, however, I do think there are things in which humans cannot and will not ever understand, and science will not explain them. I mean, we could go with the big bang. How did the bang happen/what sparked the actual "bang"? Where was all the shit before?
The other thing is, you know how I am. Part of this is for conversation/debate's sake, and the other is because I'm serious. Humans label things, like race for example, and YOU and I BOTH know that race is a HUMAN/SOCIAL contruct, passed the evolution stuff that is. Just cause I say, this star is really the sun and it's 100000 degrees hot and all that shit, does not mean they are right. All I'm saying is, take that shit with a LITTLE grain of salt, cause NOTHING in this world/universe is 100%--except death (by that I mean, every living thing dies at some point).
And yes, science is like a recipe. You have the intructions of how to do the shit, and if you follow it exactly how someone else did it, you will obviously get the same results. You just have to have competant people doing it. If I give you a chocolate cookie recipe, and you follow it EXACLTLY how I tell you, you'll get the same cookies as me.
But no, I can't think of another means to explain things, except for my own personal theories based on my personal experiences and observations about the world, universe, society, etc.
I'm not saying the Bible is a reliable source of information, however, I do think there are things in which humans cannot and will not ever understand, and science will not explain them. I mean, we could go with the big bang. How did the bang happen/what sparked the actual "bang"? Where was all the shit before?
The other thing is, you know how I am. Part of this is for conversation/debate's sake, and the other is because I'm serious. Humans label things, like race for example, and YOU and I BOTH know that race is a HUMAN/SOCIAL contruct, passed the evolution stuff that is. Just cause I say, this star is really the sun and it's 100000 degrees hot and all that shit, does not mean they are right. All I'm saying is, take that shit with a LITTLE grain of salt, cause NOTHING in this world/universe is 100%--except death (by that I mean, every living thing dies at some point).
But there are truths and facts. A pencil will drop to the ground if I release it from my hand. 2+2=4, it will never equal anything else.
Comrade, why do you insist that science is like a recipe? Explain to me how the gravitational theory is like a recipe? There are no instructions that say:
1). Place pencil in hand
2). Drop pencil
3). Watch it fall
No, this would be instructions for a test, but there are millions of tests that can be conducted to verify it as a fact.
No, what you have is a stated scientific theory, such with Newton’s law of gravitation which states that: every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is not an instruction manual, it is a statement. It is then up to scientists to conduct experiments that either support or contradict the statement.
It would be more like you making a statement that chocolate will melt at a certain temperature, I could then verify it by placing it in an oven or aiming a flame thrower at it.
What personal theories based on your personal experience do you obtain that can be used as another means to explain things?
Fine with me, I never said there weren’t things we currently do not fully understand or if we will ever fully understand them. This however is not at fault with science, merely a fault with man.
Scientific laws are 100%. Mathematics are 100%. Physics are 100% etc.
Listen comrade, that’s perfectly fine if you don’t think certain things can be explained or whatever, that’s cool with me. My issues were you originally stated “science cannot really be proved to be reliable” and that evolution is merely a “theory” and it’s all “speculation.” Once people start undermining science and making it seem like some wacky voodoo-black magic bs, then I got issues.
Comrade, why do you insist that science is like a recipe? Explain to me how the gravitational theory is like a recipe? There are no instructions that say:
1). Place pencil in hand
2). Drop pencil
3). Watch it fall
No, this would be instructions for a test, but there are millions of tests that can be conducted to verify it as a fact.
No, what you have is a stated scientific theory, such with Newton’s law of gravitation which states that: every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is not an instruction manual, it is a statement. It is then up to scientists to conduct experiments that either support or contradict the statement.
It would be more like you making a statement that chocolate will melt at a certain temperature, I could then verify it by placing it in an oven or aiming a flame thrower at it.
What personal theories based on your personal experience do you obtain that can be used as another means to explain things?
Fine with me, I never said there weren’t things we currently do not fully understand or if we will ever fully understand them. This however is not at fault with science, merely a fault with man.
Scientific laws are 100%. Mathematics are 100%. Physics are 100% etc.
Listen comrade, that’s perfectly fine if you don’t think certain things can be explained or whatever, that’s cool with me. My issues were you originally stated “science cannot really be proved to be reliable” and that evolution is merely a “theory” and it’s all “speculation.” Once people start undermining science and making it seem like some wacky voodoo-black magic bs, then I got issues.
I find it very strange that such a large amount of pottery from recent times has been found depicting dinosaur images. This website has some notable pictures and an even more fascinating (not necessarily in a legitimate way) theory as to how dinosaurs and man existed at the same time (parallel universes) and a lot of info on other subjects.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_10rapw.htm
This one is particular looks very similiar to a Brachiosaurus
For the record, I also find it INTERESTING that many cultures had tales of dragons. I find it similarly interesting that many cultures today still have tales of dinosaur like creatures such as Mokele-mbembe in the Congo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe
It is not entirely unimaginable that some small isolated pockets of dinosaurs could have survived the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Other animals were able to survive, and although 99% of a dinosaur species may have been killed 1%, if located in a similar area, is enough for the species to survive. It is difficult to believe a dinosaur like the T-Rex could have survived because of it large carnivorous appetite and the lack of food after the extinction event. However, dinosaurs that spent a large portion of their days in the water and who were herbivores could have had as good of a chance of surviving as some of the species that did.
I am not saying I BELIEVE this is necessarily what happened. If I had to choose a belief, I would choose the scientifically accepted theory, but believing something without question = ignorance.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_10rapw.htm
This one is particular looks very similiar to a Brachiosaurus
For the record, I also find it INTERESTING that many cultures had tales of dragons. I find it similarly interesting that many cultures today still have tales of dinosaur like creatures such as Mokele-mbembe in the Congo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe
It is not entirely unimaginable that some small isolated pockets of dinosaurs could have survived the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Other animals were able to survive, and although 99% of a dinosaur species may have been killed 1%, if located in a similar area, is enough for the species to survive. It is difficult to believe a dinosaur like the T-Rex could have survived because of it large carnivorous appetite and the lack of food after the extinction event. However, dinosaurs that spent a large portion of their days in the water and who were herbivores could have had as good of a chance of surviving as some of the species that did.
I am not saying I BELIEVE this is necessarily what happened. If I had to choose a belief, I would choose the scientifically accepted theory, but believing something without question = ignorance.
Very well said.
I'm more likely to go with the 'cave people digging up fossils and reconstructing their own images' scenario. Dinosaurs (as we know them) died out something like 60 million years ago, and the Species 'Homo' didn't exist until a few million years ago if that. Dinosaurs and humans have never lived together in the same age so realistic depictions of them both co-existing are impossible. The pottery could simply be evidence of the first paleontologists.
I'm more likely to go with the 'cave people digging up fossils and reconstructing their own images' scenario. Dinosaurs (as we know them) died out something like 60 million years ago, and the Species 'Homo' didn't exist until a few million years ago if that. Dinosaurs and humans have never lived together in the same age so realistic depictions of them both co-existing are impossible. The pottery could simply be evidence of the first paleontologists.