dragons in Genesis?

[maguschris]

Personally, I believe they existed once as a late type of dinosaur. And you most certainly can't say somehting that big couldn't fly because we have found skeletons of huge flying dinos, Teradyctal for example.

The biggest flying dinos were hollow-boned and pretty much all wing. Compare that to an image of something the size and weight of a T-Rex trying to get off the ground. I'm not averse to the idea that pterodactyls and rhamphoryncus were the inspiration for dinosaurs having wings, but I don't think any kind of 'dragon' ever existed that looks like we think of them now: massive creatures who are somehow still light enough to fly. Unless you believe in creatures for which the normal laws of gravity don't work, there's no way any creature that fits our current preconception of 'dragon' ever existed - maybe something similar did in the dino era, but with absolutely zero evidence to suggest that humans and dinos ever lived during the same period (bar one or two now-debunked hoaxes), I can't see how you can make a case for us getting the idea from what we saw, unless it was inferred through the mixing of pre-existing cultural ideas of monsters and then reinforced by the accidental finding of dino bones.

Your missing the fact that you DONT have all the answers and since we dont have dragon fossils to study heh we can't make a judgement on whether they could or could not have ever existed or if they could or could not have taken flight. Remember something flying only needs to be calculated by lift vs. drag (drag includes gravity). hence: IF dragosn were really the humungous monsters we think of then heh if their wings grew according to their size they'd be able to fly. I dont think if dragosn ever existed they were behemoths.

no one to take on that other part i said about dragons possibly being incorporeal

I don't have all the answers, but please consider my point of view more carefully: I'm only trying to put forward what, to me, seems more logical. An absence of dragon fossils to study does mean we can't make a judgement on their potential size - but similarly, the fact that there are no such fossils suggests that dragons were never around to leave them. Lift and drag is an important consideration in flight, but if a jumbo jet had flapping wings instead of engines, it couldn't get off the ground: if you've ever seen Chicken Run, you'll know I'm talking about thrust. A creature as colossal as a traditional dragon would not simply have to have wings proportionate to its size - they would also have to be strong enough to lift that weight in the first place, not just keep it aloft. Have you ever seen footage of an eagle or a large vulture taking flight? From a standing start, they need a run-up; they can't just flap and become airborne. But compared to a dragon, eagles and vultures are light, nimble animals, well-able to run at speed and still far lighter to lift in the air. The muscluar wing strength required to lift even a dragon the size and weight of a rhino would be phenomenal - jet planes can burn fuel, but living creatures don't have that luxury.

As for the idea of dragons being incorporeal, while this would potentially explain their existence, it is not proof of its possibility by any stretch of the imagination. It is simple a claim which, by its very nature, can neither be proven nor disproven - it can be considered as a theory, but it hardly lends weight to the idea of dragons, because you're essentially defending one scientifically unproven and improbable idea by introducing another. I see no logical problem with thinking it is possible that dragons existed on these grounds (although I do think it's a pretty thin premise), but to claim this view is in any way inassailable proof or reasonably supported scientific speculation is ludicrous. If I said to you that I believed chimeras could exist because they were incorporeal and therefore not bound to the normal laws of physics, I can't honestly see how either I could substaintiate this position with evidence or how you could be expected to think it was reasonable - even if, like God, it was ultimately unproveable either way.

If dragons were that collossal. I'm sure we havnt discovered all of the dinos that have ever lived. We have an idea of "dragons" from legends and myth. I think it merits serious consideration.

As to the the incorporeal remark, it was merely a thinker. Why are angels and demons considered to be "real", but not dragons. I was hoping you would say what you did so I can now say "well I guess we can't really prove angels, demons, God or the Devil, so why should anyone believe in them."

I honestly dont know what to think about dragons, corporeal or incorporeal, while I do believe in God, demons, angles and possibly the Devil. merely a thinker thats all. No real scientific anything to it...you have to admit if it was true that would explain a lot lol.

Here are some entries from the KJV that mention the word "Dragon" specifically. I admit not all are in context but it is late and I am not picking these apart at this hour...

Neh 2:13 And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.

Psa 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.

Isa 51:9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. [Art] thou not it that hath cut Rahab, [and] wounded the dragon?

Jer 51:34 Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with my delicates, he hath cast me out.

Eze 29:3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river [is] mine own, and I have made [it] for myself.

Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man [child].

Rev 12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who [is] like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs [come] out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

[Joshua-777]

Well, the only thing I'm going to add when it comes to doubt and suspicion is that both sides partake of it in liberal quantities. Something you can't ever really change en masse is the fact that people tend to believe first and find evidence second. I've met a lot of Christians who discredit evolution because of what they already believe and because this makes them suspicious of it, not because they have any evidence to the contrary. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

all evidence is the same, an evolutionist will discredit the claim based on what they believe, and a creationist will discredit the claim based on what they believe. If you look at the evidence, and not the interpritation of the evidence, it remains as neutral to both sides, if fossil records are a younger date, then they are exactly how they would be if a flood did happen, If the fossil record is an older date, Though I feel it doesn't line up, the evidence can be interprited into a longer date. Truth in the matter, where do you put faith? Evolution is faith in assumption of evidence provided, Creation, faith in a God based of a personal relationship with God, and evidence provided. Both require faith, one of them interacts.

[tdrehfal]

One important factor to think about, If ID, isn't concidered even valid in the realm of science, what happens to evidence that supports it?

and another question, exactly how do they date the strata? just wondering.

This is a question I think Runner's High is better equipped to answer than me. From my own knowledge, I'd say there isn't actually scientific evidence per se which supports ID - the case for it is constructed largely around criticism of evidence for evolution and by pointing out a lack of knowledge in other areas. As a theory, I don't think it was ever constructed for its own merits so much as to constitute a direct attack on evolution - I mention this because the parameters which define it are more about discrediting another field than trying, through scientific evidence, to establish an alternate theory. As for strata dating, I think they check the age of the rock plus its position in the layers, and then check those with the age of the bones - but that's just my guess.

Just wondering because I've looked around on "other ways to date objects" Carbon 4 methods cannot measure a million years, and for other methods, I havn't found any, I have seen strata layers dated by the fossils in the layer, and I've seen fossils based off the strata layers. Theres a book I think you should check out, it's called the genises floodby john c. whitcomb, and henry M moris, it had a thing about the footprints, It's funny how the dinosaur footprints where found real, some footprints where discredited, and some where interprited to go along with evolution, there was no valid evidence to discredit any of them. one interesting fact is that the majority where around 15 inches long, In Genises it makes mention that giants walked the earth. After looking at both sides, I saw evidence supporting the footprints, and the only evidence disproving them where doubt, and suspission, which isn't evidence at all.

Well, the only thing I'm going to add when it comes to doubt and suspicion is that both sides partake of it in liberal quantities. Something you can't ever really change en masse is the fact that people tend to believe first and find evidence second. I've met a lot of Christians who discredit evolution because of what they already believe and because this makes them suspicious of it, not because they have any evidence to the contrary. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

People do tend to believe first and find evidence second. This is true of every scientist, creationist or non-creationist. EVERYONE is biased. One thing

that's often said about science is that it is totally and completely objective evaluation of the evidence. There's NO SUCH THING as the perfect, totally

objective human being, all people are biased to some degree and there's no way of getting around it. People are biased, at least to some extent.

Everyone.

Do scientists not look at things, come up with a theory first (an idea, a belief that might seem reasonable) and THEN look for evidence for their theory?

Since proving an entirely new theory about something is a great achievement in scientific circles, might not the scientist be passionate about his or

her theory, and this passion could perhaps lead to some bias toward the theory? Certainly.

Edited January 21, 2007 by tdrehfal