Bait

Ok, here's some url's of dragons and potential "dino's" that seem similar.
Samples of dragons:
<a href="http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon3.htm" target="_blank">http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon3.htm</a>
<a href="http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon4.htm" target="_blank">http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon4.htm</a>
<a href="http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon10.htm" target="_blank">http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon10.htm</a>
<a href="http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon5.htm" target="_blank">http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon5.htm</a>
<a href="http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon11.htm" target="_blank">http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon11.htm</a>
<a href="http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/RAPHAEL5.JPG" target="_blank">http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/RAPHAEL5.JPG</a>
<a href="http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/RAPHAEL5.JPG" target="_blank">http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/RAPHAEL5.JPG</a>
<a href="http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon1b.htm" target="_blank">http://hive-mind.com/shelly/dragons/dragon1b.htm</a>

Samples of dino's
<a href="http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/deinonyc.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/deinonyc.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/quetzalc.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/quetzalc.jpg</a>
this one "could be?" one type of dragon?
<a href="http://www.copyrightexpired.com/earlyimage/prehistoriclifebeforekt/pteranodon01.html" target="_blank">http://www.copyrightexpired.com/earlyimage/prehistoriclifebeforekt/pteranodon01.html</a>
<a href="http://www.copyrightexpired.com/earlyimage/prehist" target="_blank">http://www.copyrightexpired.com/earlyimage/prehist</a>
Dragon of europe?
oriclifebeforekt/pterodactyl01.html
<a href="http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/coelophysis.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/coelophysis.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/cerato.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/cerato.jpg</a>
Another real likely?
<a href="http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/velo.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/velo.jpg</a>
Behemouth?
<a href="http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/brach.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.dinosauria.com/gallery/joe/brach.jpg</a>
Ron

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Bait ]</p>

Peez

Eh? You mean like the 95%+ of our DNA that we don't need? Yup. Eh? You do not appear to understand the process at all. Why do you think that "if something is not necessary (for survival) it usually fades away"? There is no intelligence picking a choosing here. What happens is that there are random mutations, random changes to the DNA. Usually these will have little effect, but sometimes they will "disable" a gene. If the gene is important to survival, then the organism may die (or not develop in the first place). If the gene is unimportant (like the gene for vitamin C in our ancestor), then it has no effect at all: the mutant gene is passed on to future generations. That's all that has to happen, a random mutation that happens to disable our ability to produce what we now call vitamin C.

Of course, natural selection sometimes favours the loss of some traits that are useless (for example, the loss of certain bones in the legs of horses probably made their legs more efficient, and cost less energy to build). In such cases, the ‘broken' gene would spread in the population more quickly than if natural selection was not acting.

Peez

Bait

Hi Oolon,
No, I didn't side step, and I didn't say "because that's how God wanted it". I just said I didn't know, specifically, the answers to your questions. I don't think if you looked at a live ape, then looked at us, you would have any trouble distinguishing between the two...at all. Our thought process is different, our appearance is different, our movements are different. So in a real sense, we ARE "set aside"...are we not? We are similar to apes in many ways, yes...I never denied that. But we are also vastly different in many ways as well.

As to me mistaking a skull of a gibbon with a chimp...my experience is with LIVE ones...and admittedly it was a few years ago. I was relating how I know of their intellegence, and their abilities...as a whole, not those specially trained. I have experience training them, playing with them, caring for them. Their intellegence is quite high...yes, but no where close to average humans.

I'll have to read more of your stuff before I can answer...I've been on the other "geology list" getting clobbered. Didn't realize this was still going. Thanks for the tips...now to try to do them. I'll get back to you, but it'll probably be Mon. Have a great weekend all...
Bests,
Ron

lpetrich

I looked at Bait's dragon pictures, and most of those whose bodies I could clearly see looked more snakelike or lizardlike or croclike than dinosaurian: a long body with a long neck and a long tail but with short legs.

Some of the dragons pictured, like the Aztec one, appeared to have fangs; this is typical of mammalian carnivores and poisonous snakes but not of dinosaurs.

So that dragon = dinosaur theory does not hold up. A much more plausible hypothesis is that dragons are figments of the imagination, pure and simple, though figments that utilize familiar beasts such as snakes.

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Ron

I beg to differ. I had asked:

and you replied with:

Admitting that "it is hard to determine sometimes without closer inspection" simply reinforces the question.
"Why might he X?"
"Why might he not X?"

Which looks to me rather like my three-year-old saying "I don't know", then folding her arms and petulantly going "Because he wants it that way" &lt;frown and pout&gt;. (Not that I'm accusing you of acting like a 3-yr-old, I just wanted to bring the image to life )

Do you like not knowing? Have another look at that long list. They are all perfectly valid questions, easily explained by evolution, and never that I've seen explained by creation. They are all "don't know"s from the creationist view. If you want answers to stuff, if you're at all curious about the natural world, it's clear where to go for answers.

But that does not contradict evolution. Sharing a common ancestor does not mean you have to be the same, just that if you share a recent one, you're likely to have lots of similarities. Humans and oak trees also share a common ancestor, but nobody in their right mind thinks they're not somewhat different. Evolution thus produces a nesting of similarities, with closely related things being group-able, then less closely related in a bigger group, then less again, all with similarities (such as a common genetic code and biochemical machinery), and with differences that make each species unique. I know of no reason why, from a creation of separate kinds, such a classification ought to even be possible, let alone inevitable. Maybe you can enlighten us...?

It also means that a change that happens in a particular lineage (and passed down to any descendant branches) is hugely unlikely to be present in a lineage that branched before it occurred. Which is why the great apes share the faulty vitamin C gene, and, say, monkeys, cows and cats do not.

Equally, this leads us to expect that when Good Ideas, such as eyes or water-propulsion tail flukes, are homed in on in different lineages, they'd have differences not related to their function. In those two cases, there are all manner of eye 'designs' in nature; that of vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs (eg squid and octopus) is remarkably similar, but the two lineages are not thought to be closely related. So it's no surprise that their retina is wired in with the photocells pointing towards the light, and ours is wired in backwards. It is, however, very odd of a designer deity to do it that way, to make two eyes so similar, yet make one less efficient by a reversal of the retina (and to do so in us 'superior' humans too). With tail flukes, fish have vertical ones, whales and dolphins have horizontal ones. That cetaceans propel themselves by moving their rear ends up and down, and have spines like, say, otters, which are flexible in that plane for terrestrial running, is pure coincidence of course.

You were one up chimp-experience-wise, and had put down my book-only chimp knowledge. Thus your chimp / gibbon mix-up allowed me to go 'touché' .

Actually, it's pretty close to an 18-month to 2 year-old's, then humans sprint on ahead.

I wonder what the intelligence of an early Homo erectus -- with it's still apish face and upper palate, but fully upright posture and cranial capacity of 900cc -- might have been like... don't you?

Cheers, Oolon

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Bait

Hi Ipetrich,
I only offered as a possible explanation. I know there are cave drawings that has images of hunters surrounding a creature that looks a plesiosaur, as well as other "Native American" cave paintings (such as around the grand canyon).

Just like some Christians may "have agenda's", so do some "scientists" and "scholars", each trying to prove their point. There are many who refuse to open their eyes and see what is in front of them...on both sides of the issue, IMHO.

Of course, the dragons could have been made up, from human imagination, or taken from common creatures such as croc's. But perhaps they were taken from dinosaurs that were left...the last of their kinds. Pterodactyl's and pteranodon's look similar to european dragons, complete with wings. So do velociraptor's. We really don't know what colors the dino's were, or even if they had fur/etc. Judging by today's variety of animal colors...it would not be a stretch to imagine varied colors with dino's too. I'm just trying to keep my mind open on the subject...that's all.
R.


{kaku yanlanji people cave painting}
[http://www.drdino.com/img/ii_11.jpg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lpetrich:
[QB](I looked at Bait's dragon pictures, and most of those whose bodies I could clearly see looked more snakelike or lizardlike or croclike than dinosaurian: a long body with a long neck and a long tail but with short legs.

Some of the dragons pictured, like the Aztec one, appeared to have fangs; this is typical of mammalian carnivores and poisonous snakes but not of dinosaurs)

Kosh

Just a general observation I've made about you
Ron. I know that you want to logically reconcile
the Biblical accounts with modern science. By
staying in the realm of "we just don't know for
sure" (which I've noted is your prefered stance),
it's much easier to chalk conflicts up to
mis-interpretation. The problem is, as Oolon and
others have been trying to point out in explicit
detail, and which you refuse to admit, is that
man of those things you think "We just don't know
for sure", we do in fact, know for sure.

lpetrich

They don't. Look more carefully. Dragons are usually pictured as being rather snakelike, though with limbs and sometimes wings. However, velociraptors and other theropod dinosaurs were more birdlike in overall body shape than snakelike.

Also, dragon wings are generally pictured as being much like bat wings, which have the bones of some fingers extending into stretched-out skin. However, pterodactyl wings had only one finger's bones in their stretched-out wing skin; that finger was their little finger, and it was elongated to form the leading edge of the wing.

Bird, bat, and pterodactyl wings are a classic example of convergent evolution. Though wings were invented three times from forelimbs, the details of those inventions are distinctly different -- and consistent within each group.

That's a side issue. I was not judging by color or skin covering; I was judging by the sort of features that are evident from typical fossils.

Bait

Oolon,
You're citing instances from today's animal kingdoms and how they work today. You're asking "why" can this animal mate with that one, but not another, etc...and the answer is because that is the way they developed over the years, or thousands of years. I'm AGREEING with you here dude... I've never spoken against natural selection. However, on the "other" kitty list, the geologist types admitted that all living things may NOT have come from a common ancestor, based on geology evidence, but rather possibly from several different ancestors. I've spoken against ONE common ancestor, but really have no dispute against SEVERAL ancestors of living things. That is why a cow does not have much in common with a tree....different ancestors, in the beginning. Why parasites? Why deseases? Part of the circle of life. No different than scavengers getting rid of the remains of dead things. That is why I think everything works perfectly, and why I personally think everything was created by design, not accident. Everything, I think, works as it should work. Death is simply part of life. Death is needed and necessary unless plants and animals stops reproducing. Hence deseases are parts of life that helps in "thinning the herd" so to speak. Animals that cannot adapt, die out...become extinct, aren't needed anymore. Sometimes global catastophies happen, again, to freshen life's circle, to start something new.

But you made a point of several times saying (mockingly)"Because that’s how god wanted it." as my answer (putting words in my mouth btw). But even then...so??? I've never hidden my belief in God. The better question you could have asked would be WHY did God want it that way? And I really don't know the answer to that one either, except all of these things are "parts that keep the watch ticking".

I wasn't sidestepping...I really do not know the answer, and admitted it...so why do you feel that much of a need to gloat??? I could make up a bunch of nonsense, and really make myself look stupid....but the truth is, I don't know. Need other words? Ok, my education is not sufficient enough in that area to answer you point for point. Just because I personally do not know an answer, doesn't mean your theory is necessarily correct either. You may be just a bit more educated in that area than I. And your theory may very well be correct as to natural selection, but as you said yourself...science doesn't "prove" anything.

You haven't proven that there isn't God, anymore than I can prove that there is. I don't dispute that many varied animals may come from other animals, natural selection and all of that...and I don't think the Bible disagrees with you on that point either, (my own opinion). The two main points I disagree with you concerning the biological sciences is that ALL life came from ONE common ancestor...and even your geologist buddies agree that multiple ancestors do not negate evolution, and is possibly the correct assumption. Next disagreement is that of man...humans. Even those in the scientific community don't know exactly how to classify "Lucy". I personally think she was fully human...Homo Sapien..as was the Neanderthal. But I do NOT think apes and humans had a common ancestor, although they look similar beneath the skin, because I believe humans are separate all in themselves, and were created by God...personally. That is my belief, and if you wish to believe you're an accident of nature...ok, that's your choice. We'll agree to disagree. One major difference I see is the way the brains are layed out. And why, in these thousands of years, have not any of the other apes increased/evolved into intellegence anywhere near our intellegence.

As to chimps, I interacted with live chimps, helped train them, etc...I've had personal "hands on" experience with them. I did not dissect them, study their skeletons, etc. but I do know of their intellegence, which is the vein of what we were talking of when I mentioned chimps. You leaped to conclusions my friend. I'll allow the "dig" though <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> ...but at the same time, I have a feeling perhaps I surprised you a bit as to being able to identify what I was able to.
Gotta run for now...and your right bTW...the geology guys are burying me proper.
Bests,
Ron

Bait

Ipetrich,
Point taken, and like I said...a possibility. The only other explanation that I can see to explain why the aztech's are similar to the chinese, which are similar to the europeans is cross contamination of cultures. Why else would there be such similarities? Also, what about the "paintings on the wall" though? Are we to ignor them? One cannot deny the similarities.
Ron