Dragons everywhere you look!

[jiii]

Originally Posted by Alvis Rofhessa

Scientific & historical evidence that dinosaurs & humans/civilization were contemporaneous:

1) ancient oral memories (Bible & "myths") and pictures of dinosaur-like creatures like red dragons, winged/footed serpents, Leviathan, Behemoth, Taniwhas = tannin, Sir-rush/Mush-rush (tsir = serpent), etc, including Deva-Nagari writings which mention life with the dinos, what they ate, how they mated, etc, and a pre-Columbian jaguar figure with spade like features on side & rear imagined to look like a modern geared earth-moving machine but which looks like a dragon.

2) footprints of dinosaurs and humans have been found in the same bed, though the authenticity of both is debated and the humanoid ones are giant. 3) there have been found human bones underneath dino bones in S America.
4) the world egg/world serpent in mythology.
5) alledged modern sitings of dino-like creatures in Africa & Loch Ness.
6) un/fossilized dino remains (blood/meat) that couldn't have been so well preserved for so long.
7) surviving reptiles.
8) traces of humans/civilization have been found in every period of the geological time scale.
9) mass graves of dinosaurs in Gobi desert as if water/sand dumped on them.

You know, there are numerous specimen dating techniques that scientists employ. Although they may sometimes be inaccurate by decades or even a few centuries, they are more than accurate enough to determine whether or not any given set of dinosaur bones is 65,000,000 years old as opposed to 6,500 years old. Were any actual scientists to have found dinosaur bones that had a genuinely reasonable chance of changing the world's ideas about the timeline of life on this planet, I hardly think that they would do anything but jump at the chance to make the most mind-blowing discovery in their field. It leads me to believe that most of the discoveries you cite were either not made by anyone that could vaguely be called a scientist, or that there are explanations for the strangeness of the cases that are much more likely than there having been dinosaurs in the time of man.

Anyhow, there are a few points you mention which I am curious about. Where were unfossilized dinosaur bones and apparently unrotted flesh found...encased in ice? Also, when you say "traces of humans/civilization have been found in every period of the geological time scale", are you insinuating that mankind has existed for 65,000,000 years?

I do not argue that large reptiles did not exist beside man. I also do not argue that, over the course of man's evolution, he walked beside a few very large reptiles that could, I suppose, be called dinosaurs. But, I do think that based upon what we know at this point in time, it is most improbable that man ever laid eyes upon what we classically know as 'dinosaurs'. What science knows about dinosaurs right now points to them dying out somewhere around 65,000,000 years ago. That's a REALLY LONG TIME AGO...nowehere even close to the oldest humanoid fossils, which extend back in the range of about 1,000,000 years (and that's going back so far that we were more reminiscent of modern apes than modern people). If dinosaurs had lived alongside man, then where did the last 64,000,000 years worth of fossils go? Why would we find nothing but fossils that are 65myo or older, when there should be an additional 64,000,000 years worth of bones on top of them? It just doesn't make any sense.

[Alvis Rofhessa]

Regarding (quantity/quality of) dating methods: I'm no scientist vocation wise but there are many other people incld creation-scientists who give evidence that their dating methods are flawed/unsatisfactory. Strata dates fossils, fossils date strata. Modern things give radiometric dates mills of yrs old. Antarctica ice-free date dramatic change of mind. A number of artefacts they can't even agree on correct radiometric date. Climate/magnestism/radiation etc effect radiometric dating. Contamination of strata (eg they use this against us when we say dino bones found underneath human bones). Strata eparate sites/rings diff trees said to be contemp/consecutive but may not necess be so. The dates may be relatively correct but not necessarily length time correct.

"Scientists" are just as vulnerable to internal and external influences as "nazis, criminals, xtians, communists, etc." Also there is money-power/people-power/demagogery for one revolutionary person to fight against cp Velikovsky, Cobb, Tesla, Hitler, Jesus, etc.

A discovery doesn't have to be only made by scientist to be true, what you mean is it has to be verified scientifically. I can't vouch for some but if they have not been there may be reasons, this is like saying we won't vote for a electoral candidate because they don't have experience yet under this system one can't get experience if one doesn't get in. If any "strangness" it may for one just be because it doesn't fit their nice little time-scale hence name "out of place artefacts" or "forbidden archaeology". There have been strangenesses pointed out by others about orthodox evolutionary/geological evidence yet that is not equally raised. Strangness requires open objective investigation not rejection. "Other explanations" may not be equally convincing in the other sides eyes. Hoaxes/mistakes don't nullify other evidence: "just because solar and salt aren't related doesn't mean solar and sulphur can't be".

No the flesh/blood remains were not due to cryogenics as far as I know (I say this because perhaps it is possoible the areas were under ice in past.

The traces of humans/civilisation in every period of geological time scale (see Forbidden Archaeology by Cremo & Thompson, and other sources) can be taken to mean either humanoids are as old as earth, or earth is as young as humans. All the various types of evidence I have seen/heard in my life points to the latter.

The best thing to do is keep your eyes/ears open when reading ancient mythology/history like Beowulf and see for yourself whether ancient (composite) beasts/creatures/dragons/taniwhas/sirrush/leviathan/behemoth/"hippo"/"crocodile" etc sould/look like dinos or not.

"Science" has to satisfactorily explain ancient accounts of dinosaurs, ice-ages, continental shifts, planets shifting, etc. Ancient eye-witness accounts/records/testimony (and Jung's collective unconscious) is evidence in itself.

The Long times in the geological time-scale and pre-history for periods are so long it is ridiculously unbelieveable. Thousands of yrs for/between each one age of paleolithic etc!

I don't understand last comment quote "If dinosaurs had lived alongside man, then where did the last 64,000,000 years worth of fossils go? Why would we find nothing but fossils that are 65myo or older, when there should be an additional 64,000,000 years worth of bones on top of them? It just doesn't make any sense." Please clarify/elaborate so I can consider if it requires change of my ideas, or can be answered.

[jiii]

Originally Posted by Alvis Rofhessa

Regarding (quantity/quality of) dating methods: I'm no scientist vocation wise but there are many other people incld creation-scientists who give evidence that their dating methods are flawed/unsatisfactory. Strata dates fossils, fossils date strata. Modern things give radiometric dates mills of yrs old. Antarctica ice-free date dramatic change of mind. A number of artefacts they can't even agree on correct radiometric date. Climate/magnestism/radiation etc effect radiometric dating. Contamination of strata (eg they use this against us when we say dino bones found underneath human bones). Strata eparate sites/rings diff trees said to be contemp/consecutive but may not necess be so. The dates may be relatively correct but not necessarily length time correct.

Most of what you say here is correct. Dating techniques do, indeed, all have a certain margin of error. All of the factors you mention do have the effect of causing deviation, just as you say. No arguments there. However, I think that you are over-inflating the significance of these flaws.

Although dating methods certainly shouldn't be held as absolute truths, they are all more accurate than they are inaccurate, which is why they are used in the first place. Furthermore, in the case of well-established lines of research, such as paleontology, the estimates of the age of something like dinosaur bones has been checked in numerous ways using many different tests. Inter-field communication with geologists, biologists, and many other fields concerned with the gathering and testing of prehistoric data, are all taken into account, the results being compared, collectively re-interpreted, and clarified. The result...nothing we classically know as dinosaurs existed past somewhere around 65,000,000 years ago. Large reptiles, some very large, did exist after then, but not the creatures we mean when we talk about dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by Alvis Rofhessa

"Scientists" are just as vulnerable to internal and external influences as "nazis, criminals, xtians, communists, etc." Also there is money-power/people-power/demagogery for one revolutionary person to fight against cp Velikovsky, Cobb, Tesla, Hitler, Jesus, etc.

A discovery doesn't have to be only made by scientist to be true, what you mean is it has to be verified scientifically. I can't vouch for some but if they have not been there may be reasons, this is like saying we won't vote for a electoral candidate because they don't have experience yet under this system one can't get experience if one doesn't get in. If any "strangness" it may for one just be because it doesn't fit their nice little time-scale hence name "out of place artefacts" or "forbidden archaeology". There have been strangenesses pointed out by others about orthodox evolutionary/geological evidence yet that is not equally raised. Strangness requires open objective investigation not rejection. "Other explanations" may not be equally convincing in the other sides eyes. Hoaxes/mistakes don't nullify other evidence: "just because solar and salt aren't related doesn't mean solar and sulphur can't be".

I am very much aware of the 'power struggles' that occur in modern science. And, indeed, there have been quite a few instances over the course of history, and many which persist to this day, where new, revolutionary data has been rejected by mainstream science, which instead clings to its old assumptions rather than taking the leap into uncertainty that accompanies change. Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Alvis Rofhessa

The traces of humans/civilisation in every period of geological time scale (see Forbidden Archaeology by Cremo & Thompson, and other sources) can be taken to mean either humanoids are as old as earth, or earth is as young as humans. All the various types of evidence I have seen/heard in my life points to the latter.

Who have you been seeing and hearing? Certainly not the overwhelming majority of scientists in this world. The Earth is taken to be many billions of years old by just about every field of science which is in the least bit interested with such facts...astronomy, paleontology, geology, meteorology, chemistry, earth science, etc. All of these fields, and the vast majority of the scientists that carry them out, use those estimates with successful results, again and again. The age of anything vaguely human is not much more than one million years...we can even assume the greatest possible margin of error (which is pretty unrealistic), and say that scientists guess late by 5,000,000 years on the age of humans, and dinosaurs died out 20,000,000 years after scientists think. That still puts people in existence 39,000,000 years after dinosaurs died out. We could even allow for completely outrageous margin of error: say people existed 10,000,000 years earlier than estimated (10 times older than currently believed) and dinosaurs existed 40,000,000 years later than scientists believe. That still leaves a 14,000,000 year gap between dinosaurs and people, not to mention a strangely non-existant 50,000,000 years worth of fossil records.

Originally Posted by Alvis Rofhessa

The best thing to do is keep your eyes/ears open when reading ancient mythology/history like Beowulf and see for yourself whether ancient (composite) beasts/creatures/dragons/taniwhas/sirrush/leviathan/behemoth/"hippo"/"crocodile" etc sould/look like dinos or not.

"Science" has to satisfactorily explain ancient accounts of dinosaurs, ice-ages, continental shifts, planets shifting, etc. Ancient eye-witness accounts/records/testimony (and Jung's collective unconscious) is evidence in itself.

The Long times in the geological time-scale and pre-history for periods are so long it is ridiculously unbelieveable. Thousands of yrs for/between each one age of paleolithic etc!

My only problem with most of your points is that you seem to hold science as if it is just one somewhat useful method for establishing knowledge...as if mythology interpretation is a practice just as capable as science of establishing factual information. This is plainly absurd.

Science may only be a tool, and thus one that is subject to error and difficulty in implementation. But, as Carl Jung, himself, wrote: "Science is not, indeed, a perfect instrument, but it is a superior and indispensable one..." Science is not really under heavy obligation to explain the strangeness of the plethora of ancient mythologies, as things just as strange can be invented off the top of a creative writer's head everyday. Just because the North American Indian says the world began on a turtle's back doesn't mean that science must set out to conclusively prove that it didn't happen like that...or, for that matter, that science must address all various mythologies from every culture in the world to make sure they are incorrect. Science is not the enemy of man's knowledge, and it doesn't have any obligation to go head to head with every wild idea ever expressed by anyone.

You are correct in what you say about many of the ways that science may be flawed by deviation or old information, but you mistakenly interpret that to mean that science is only a tad bit more reliable than the proverbial 'shot-in-the-dark'. That is simply not the case, whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Alvis Rofhessa

I don't understand last comment quote "If dinosaurs had lived alongside man, then where did the last 64,000,000 years worth of fossils go? Why would we find nothing but fossils that are 65myo or older, when there should be an additional 64,000,000 years worth of bones on top of them? It just doesn't make any sense." Please clarify/elaborate so I can consider if it requires change of my ideas, or can be answered.

What I'm saying here is that all scientific data points to dinosaurs dying out 65,000,000 years ago. The bones of dinosaurs that are found are all older than 65,000,000 years, some being much older. Yet, after that point...no more dinosaur bones. So...If 65myo old dinosaurs left enough bones behind to rebuild dozens of skeletons, wouldn't there be bones all over the place from dinosaurs that existed 10 million, 30 million, even 60 million years later? Where would they all have gone? A few accounts of 'out-of-place' artifacts simply aren't enough to account for the fact that we should've found 10 bones of more recent dinosaurs for every single bone of a 65myo dinosaur ever discovered. There just isn't a reasonable way to account for such a gap in the fossil record.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JIII!

Goodness, I didn't expect this thread to become a replay of an earlier thread discussing evolution vs. creation. We had great fun on that thread, but I suppose most of the newcomers may not be familiar with that discussion.

Originally Posted by jiii

Dating techniques do, indeed, all have a certain margin of error. All of the factors you mention do have the effect of causing deviation, just as you say. No arguments there. However, I think that you are over-inflating the significance of these flaws.

Although dating methods certainly shouldn't be held as absolute truths, they are all more accurate than they are inaccurate, which is why they are used in the first place. Furthermore, in the case of well-established lines of research, such as paleontology, the estimates of the age of something like dinosaur bones has been checked in numerous ways using many different tests. Inter-field communication with geologists, biologists, and many other fields concerned with the gathering and testing of prehistoric data, are all taken into account, the results being compared, collectively re-interpreted, and clarified. The result...nothing we classically know as dinosaurs existed past somewhere around 65,000,000 years ago.

I am in general agreement.

Large reptiles, some very large, did exist after then, but not the creatures we mean when we talk about dinosaurs.

About the closest I can think of to illustrate "living" fossils is turtles / tortoises, alligators / crocodiles / caimans, sharks, coelocanths, and lung fish. There may be more, but this is the short list of those critters we discussed in the other thread.

I am very much aware of the 'power struggles' that occur in modern science. And, indeed, there have been quite a few instances over the course of history, and many which persist to this day, where new, revolutionary data has been rejected by mainstream science, which instead clings to its old assumptions rather than taking the leap into uncertainty that accompanies change. Absolutely.

Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

In theory, it's easy.

In practice, it's not.

Who have you been seeing and hearing? Certainly not the overwhelming majority of scientists in this world. The Earth is taken to be many billions of years old by just about every field of science which is in the least bit interested with such facts...astronomy, paleontology, geology, meteorology, chemistry, earth science, etc. All of these fields, and the vast majority of the scientists that carry them out, use those estimates with successful results, again and again. The age of anything vaguely human is not much more than one million years...we can even assume the greatest possible margin of error (which is pretty unrealistic), and say that scientists guess late by 5,000,000 years on the age of humans, and dinosaurs died out 20,000,000 years after scientists think. That still puts people in existence 39,000,000 years after dinosaurs died out. We could even allow for completely outrageous margin of error: say people existed 10,000,000 years earlier than estimated (10 times older than currently believed) and dinosaurs existed 40,000,000 years later than scientists believe. That still leaves a 14,000,000 year gap between dinosaurs and people, not to mention a strangely non-existant 50,000,000 years worth of fossil records.

This is probably the best explanation I have heard. Frequently, I end up speaking to those scientific dogmatists that hold the timeline as a rigid gospel of sorts, inerrant and immutable. Watching an argument between a religious fundamentalist and a scientific fundamentalist is a rather interesting show. Dogmatism against dogmatism...a religious war of words if ever there is one to see!

My only problem with most of your points is that you seem to hold science as if it is just one somewhat useful method for establishing knowledge...as if mythology interpretation is a practice just as capable as science of establishing factual information. This is plainly absurd.

I can sympathize with a desire to hold myth as truth, certainly I agree myth points to truth. "Myth" does not equal "lie." Neither is myth fully truth. Likewise, science is not fully truth either, it is another tool, like myth, that points to truth. There are elements to reality that science cannot register, cannot fathom, cannot hold, dissect and quantify. Elements that exist nontheless.

Science may only be a tool, and thus one that is subject to error and difficulty in implementation. But, as Carl Jung, himself, wrote: "Science is not, indeed, a perfect instrument, but it is a superior and indispensable one..."

I like this.

Science is not really under heavy obligation to explain the strangeness of the plethora of ancient mythologies, as things just as strange can be invented off the top of a creative writer's head everyday. Just because the North American Indian says the world began on a turtle's back doesn't mean that science must set out to conclusively prove that it didn't happen like that...or, for that matter, that science must address all various mythologies from every culture in the world to make sure they are incorrect. Science is not the enemy of man's knowledge, and it doesn't have any obligation to go head to head with every wild idea ever expressed by anyone.

Well, yes...with the caveat that religion is under no obligation to science, either. If anything, I find much more insistence of the latter in our generation. We've gotten beyond Galileo, now we seem beholding to Darwin, Einstein and Oppenheimer. Not to mention, how do we yet account for Quantum theory, and what place if any do we accord to the "scientific myth" of string theory?

You are correct in what you say about many of the ways that science may be flawed by deviation or old information, but you mistakenly interpret that to mean that science is only a tad bit more reliable than the proverbial 'shot-in-the-dark'. That is simply not the case, whatsoever.

Agreed again, with the caveat that while "formal" science is, compared with formal religion, quite young, nimble and flexible, it is in no way superior. There is a fundamental disconnect between the two disciplines, and in my experience I see only two places they may have to overlap: morality and love. Possibly a third: animating spirit. Beyond that, the two have little interaction with each other, and they cannot by their natures. One seeks answers to the question of "why," the other seeks answers to the question of "how."

What I'm saying here is that all scientific data points to dinosaurs dying out 65,000,000 years ago. The bones of dinosaurs that are found are all older than 65,000,000 years, some being much older. Yet, after that point...no more dinosaur bones. So...If 65myo old dinosaurs left enough bones behind to rebuild dozens of skeletons, wouldn't there be bones all over the place from dinosaurs that existed 10 million, 30 million, even 60 million years later? Where would they all have gone? A few accounts of 'out-of-place' artifacts simply aren't enough to account for the fact that we should've found 10 bones of more recent dinosaurs for every single bone of a 65myo dinosaur ever discovered. There just isn't a reasonable way to account for such a gap in the fossil record.

I am not employed in the field, just an interested armchair bystander. Having said this, I am wondering how "they" know about the interim species of mammals in those intervening millions of years if not for fossils? If the extinction was complete at 65 mya +/-, then the whole process would have to start over, which is clearly not the case. We know about interim creatures, so there are fossils (it would seem) in the interim, just not in the same abundance.

Interesting to me, is that the "global" catastrophy of 65 mya is not a "one off" event, there were cataclysmic events before and after, including a couple of doosies in recorded history. Seems there was a major event unearthed while looking at Moche Indian artifacts in Peru, and it seems I recall hearing of tree ring and ice core samples from Ireland and Arctic / Antarctic respectively that correspond to a major El Nino event around 550 AD, that lasted somewhere on the order of 50 years or so. Going by memory, I also recall an event called "the Maunder Minimum," (it's been awhile, 1400's ? iirc), when sunspot activity was non-existent and the Thames river regularly froze solid in winter for a period of about 100 years.

Our current "catastrophy" of global warming may be cause for concern, but is hardly unique or unprecedented in the history of the planet.

I do find interesting certain archeological hints towards what Alvis is hinting at in certain pottery among Peruvian indians. There are funerary artifacts of the pre-Columbian period that seem to depict humans interacting intimately with large reptiles. Reptiles large enough that we would instinctively think of them in modern terms as dinosaurs.

I have also personally looked at a set of footprints quite evidently to me laid down by a human being. Not three feet away running parallel in the same strata, were a set of junior sauropod footprints. I have heard the human prints explained away, rather lamely I might add, as selective erosion. I fail to see how, when there are plenty of other dino prints in the area that are very complete. Incidentally, these dino prints are authenticated well enough, a rather large collection of them are on display in a major New York museum. The site is in Glen Rose, Texas, should there be interest. Paluxy River.

Not that I wish to enter the debate again at this point between science and religion in this matter. However, I do agree there are certain subjects, issues and findings that formal science is more inclined to overlook. Occasionally there are things found that jeopardize the established dogma. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming enough to rock the boat into submission, and science grudgingly acceeds. Other times it seems to me, where the evidence is a bit more sparse, there is not enough to rock the boat, and the status quo remains.

My slightly more than two cents tonight.

Had I known Dragons would become Dinosaurs, perhaps I should have included them in the initial post...?

[jiii]

juantoo3-

Goodness, I didn't expect this thread to become a replay of an earlier thread discussing evolution vs. creation.

...Agreed again, with the caveat that while "formal" science is, compared with formal religion, quite young, nimble and flexible, it is in no way superior.

My only goal in that post was to show the unlikelihood of dinosaurs existing alongside humans, as it might be argued by science. In no way am I a 'scientific dogmatist' that treats science as infallible and scoffs at the significance of religion. Nor do I contend that religion and spirituality are little more than novelty and superstition in comparison to the 'almighty truth and seriousness' of science.

Religion has, in no way, ever declared itself a designated body of experts on prehistoric biology. This has never occurred to a religion to do, since religion doesn't have much to do with prehistoric biology. The 'evolution vs. creation' debate is not something I have any interest in addressing here, as I am sure that scientific beliefs probably do not fit seamlessly with countless different cosmologies, not just the Christian's.

Now, regardless of who you are, if "all the various types of evidence seen/heard in life point to earth being as young as humans", my simple point is that you haven't taken a very good look around. Because although there may be information that supports that, there is a plentitude of information that doesn't. To entirely ignore and discount these pieces of information, not even taking them into consideration, in no way profits a man.

Also, I want to mention that Jung calling science a "superior" tool was in no way a statement of scientific dogmatism. That quote, in fact, comes from in-depth commentary by Jung of ancient Taoist texts called "The Secret of the Golden Flower." Jung was a scientist, but absolutely not a scientific dogmatist...he had a genuine respect for religion that in no way discounted its deep significance. Nor do I discount such things.

The actual entire quote that Jung made might shed some more light on this. He wrote," Science is not, indeed, a perfect instrument, but it is a superior and indispensable one that makes harm only when taken as an end in itself." In other words, I would be fool to say that I absolutely know beyond a shadow of all doubt that our Universe isn't sitting on the back of a Native American Creation turtle. I can't really know that. But, in this particular case, I feel that it is not out of line to think that, on the back of this turtle, dinosaurs didn't live alongside humans.

[Alvis Rofhessa]

thanks jiii, thoughts on each of your paragraphs/blocs of text (numbered in their order) minus a few unfinished ones:

2. I disagree in many cases that "dating methods are more accurate than inaccurate". The "reason they are used in 1st place" is because the aside from the oral memory evidence which they reject they had no other way to date things than to work out by those methods they came up with.

Re "inter-field": well it is often an accusation that modern scholarship/science is too specialised and no generalists. Gathering: but they are selective about what they incld and reject as forbidden/out of place.

The only way to work out where the problem is is to consider each dating method individually. Firstly there is distinction between absolute & relative dating methods. Methods incl radiometric (carbon, pot-arg), tree rings, ice ages, stratigraphy, flourine, speed of light, etc.

4. I agree majority counts for something, but I also know that the best people are a minority while rest are majority (that's whats wrong with democracy.) (Also, the other side is every one else other than orthodox "science" (cp "O is largest [of any one] blood grp" but all other blood grps together are larger than O).)

Not majority of scientists in present [western] world, but rather go by majority of persons/peoples in whole of world history. (We are wrongly made out to be so much more superior to/than the ancients.) Also compare: big bang appears to be a majority belief yet there have been many who hold other ideas like plasma universe, steady state/static cosmology, etc. There have been many scientists since enlightenment/renaissance who don't wholly agree with geological time-scale/evolution incld present creation-scientists.

The dates/dating systems in each/every one of those fields/dating methods have their ifs and buts/dissenters. (Eg dust of moon is only few centimetres or inches thick. Amount of salt in sea. Tiahuanaco. Sudden frozen mammoths in Siberia. Errosion of coasts.) Many of the dating systems all rest on the assumption that the rates/speeds have always been as uniformly steady and slow as they are now.
"Succesful results" can agree with each other because of common causes not because the "dates" are correctly measured. (Also perhaps coincidence as with coincidence of mythological calendars/Atlantis date with Sphinx/end Ice Age/Cro-Magnon.)

If that margin of error is/was true then that would say somthing about how questionable the dating is.
But the traces of humans/civilisation are there in the strata of every period so we can't say nothing human was around then just because allegedly nothing otherwise has been dated to then.
Again the lengths/dates/figures are so huge it is unbelievable (tho an argument against me here wold be cp light years distances).

5. I disagree that it is "absurd" to accept mythology as well as science as valid. Rather I think it is absurd that orthodoxy only (fully) accepts "science" (without question) but doesn't accept "mythology" as evidence (except on select occasions).

The reason I favour mythology over "science" is because mythology is ancient eye-witness memories/evidence whereas "science" is only modern attempt to work out what happened in history from selective physical remains which disregards ancient evidence just because it doesn't fit with their theoretical worldview.

6. If they really accept that science (or in another subject, this western political system) is not perfect but subject to error then why resist correction.
Science is inferior to Holism which myth is.

Science specialism within itself may perhaps not be obliged to confront oral memory evidence ("different path"), but the reigning whole generalist world-view should be. And science should be obliged to confront the pointed out "strangnesses" that do fall within its own field. Many "strange" facts are well known enought that "invention/hoax/lie/wild" possibiity is irrrelevant in those cases at least.

Strange myths like world on trutles back or flat/hollow earth or should not be rejected as but looked into to find out what they really mean. Many myths are not strange but quite simple/obvious.

"Science" is an enemy if it is un-holistic or if it has been infiltrated/high-jacked almost from the start by an un-holistic ism like evolutionism. Eg, must have both reason and instinct (and in right proportions/balance) not just reason/logic. Must have both experimental and abstract not just abstract. Must have both catastrophism and uniformitarianism not just uniform. Etc, etc.

8. That's assuming the geological time scale is correct order if not correct length dates. Dinosaurs did mostly die out at some stage(s) in ancient times so of course there is going to be a "gap" between then and now. (Some catastrophes can obliterate relics/artefacts eg salt water rust metals/rot wood.) The humans were contemp with dinos of the period(s) you mention and have left traces in subsequent periods.
There are more than just "a few" forbidden archaeological/out of place artefacts. Even so quality not just quantity.

There are 2 arguments here 1) is "science" right about the dates, and 2) is science right about humans not living alongside dinos. Tiahuanaco must have been either built millions of years ago, or been raised up suddenly, but orthodox "science" rejects both.

----
juantoo 3:

sorry I didn't mean to turn this thread/topic into an evolution vs creation one. I had only intended to mention dragons = dinosaurs amoung a number of comments as I did. But it is always a controversial issue. I like to consider that I also come up with my own original arguments not "replay" others. It is easier to interact than just to have to read thru tons of old posts.

True that science is half facts and half theory. The dispute is whether particular things falls in fact or in theory. Also true that mythology is not always literally true but sometimes true in a analogy/"operative fiction" way. But by its nature myth/religion/bible = holism and so must have a true view of the world incld history. Myth/religion is Holism and so inclds science/history, but science is not/does not.

It is not (necess just) a desire of mine to hold myth as true. It is instinct and demonstrated/experience etc. My desire is to find the truth which I see science (like this western political system) doesn't (fully) have.

"Religion" and "science" must be ("obligation") synthesised not (wholly) separated, (similarily compare in secular world: not separation of Church and State nor Union but semi-union/semi-separation.)

[jiii]

You are correct in saying that unholistic science is an insufficient entity to be used as an end it itself. Intuition and intellection are important in their own rights. But, I would argue that, in the case of determining the age of prehistoric artifacts, intuition is not very important whatsoever. Pick up any rock outside, and I think it's a pretty good bet that neither you or I would have any clue how old it is based upon our intuition. As mankind doesn't really have any intuition that reveals probable prehistoric time-scales, I feel that science and its reason/logical approach are the best we really have. Furthermore, the breadth of scientific data concerning dinosaurs and man means that, although doubt cannot and should not be laid to rest, it isn't as though current information is just a shot in the dark...there is a considerable degree of consideration and collaboration and research that has been carried out, because scientists themselves strive to get it right...not just to throw some outlandish theory on the table.

Anyhow, I suppose that the more important aspect to this discussion is that we might both agree that dragon myths are related, in some way, to dinosaurs. I personally believe that bones were all someone of antiquity might have found, simply because I feel that science, although capable of error, has presented mounds of examples for their argument, and because they don't have much to gain by presenting information that they believe to be non-sense or anything but accurate. Nonetheless, I will concede that I wasn't there in distant geologic time periods, so I guess that as far as eye-witness accounts go, I can't verify my argument with a single one.

The point we both express, fundamentally, remains similar. That dinosaurs may very well have played a part in development of dragon mythology...either because humans found their bones after they died out, or because humans literally saw some dinosaurs over the course of their development.

[Alvis Rofhessa]

Thanks jiii, I like the (re)conciliatory way you ended that while I always seem to come across antagonistic.
There are many ways intuition/instinct come into play other than just exagerated scenario of picking up a rock and humming to ones self to pull out a date from the air.
Mythology and science seemingly contradict each other about dinosaurs, continental shifts, ice ages, etc. Ideally we would like to reconcile/synthesise both to each other. Otherwise we have to choose which to believe. If/when it comes to choosing then I believe ancient memory/accouts over modern attempts, while majority of people would rather believe "science" over ancient testimony/witness.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

In the 70's!??! It wasn't called "puff" by any chance? And was a magical dragon...?

Nobody, at all, found that funny?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Nobody, at all, found that funny?

LOL, yes, I found it funny....again, just like I did many times long ago...

[Nattering Nabob]

In my view the key aspect of western dragons is that their main characteristic is covetousness or desire...the etymology of the word dragon is Greek (derkomai) "to see clearly"...the serpant in the Garden of Eden appealed to the covetousness of Eve and so we have the phrase "apple of my eye" to describe something we truly desire......Charles Spurgeon spoke of the "basilisk stare of sin"...the key aspect of sin is selfishness and the dragons were great hoarders of wealth and therefore were selfish...

The mythological metaphor of defeating a dragon is symbolic of overcoming our own selfishness and desires and thereby diminishing our over-identification with the ego.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

LOL, yes, I found it funny....again, just like I did many times long ago...

Thanks Juan!! You're my boy Juan!!

[mee]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

A bit of Job... Sounds mighty dragonish to me.. Maybe dragons are dinosaurs but the myths survived because people actually saw them and told stories... Matter of fact all of Job 40-41 speak of Leviathan and Behemoth. Fascinating how the bible proves itself as science develops.

11 Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him? Everything under heaven is Mine. 12 "I will not conceal his limbs, His mighty power, or his graceful proportions. 13 Who can remove his outer coat? Who can approach him with a double bridle? 14 Who can open the doors of his face, With his terrible teeth all around? 15 His rows of scales are his pride, Shut up tightly as with a seal; 16 One is so near another That no air can come between them; 17 They are joined one to another, They stick together and cannot be parted. 18 His sneezings flash forth light, And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 Out of his mouth go burning lights; Sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils, As from a boiling pot and burning rushes. 21 His breath kindles coals, And a flame goes out of his mouth. 22 Strength dwells in his neck, And sorrow dances before him.

Behemoth, is generally identified as the hippopotamus. and the
Leviathan as a crocodile

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, mee!

Originally Posted by mee

Behemoth, is generally identified as the hippopotamus. and the
Leviathan as a crocodile

In some interpretations I have heard this. I have also seen multiple references from old British sailors maps that indicate Leviathan was a sea serpent, although there are various representations ranging from the Kraken to something like Nessie.

[ChristianMyst]

I noticed in this post dragons are spoken of as if they do not exist. They do, they are in the aetheric realms and people can be taught to see these, just as they can be taught to see Nature People.

Christian Myst