Behold the Terrible Lizard!

[Phred]

As usual, you miss the point. Ford's existence is not relevant to his manufacture of cars. Your deity's existence is most relevant to your claim that it created the universe.

The cars were manufactured. I can go to the plant where it happens and observe it taking place. There is no grand mystery.

You INSIST that we were created. Yet, I see no creation. I see natural processes which have been explained. Then you come barreling in with your insufficient mythology and try to force us to accept it. So, naturally we question you. IF your deity created the universe and everything show us HOW. (you can't.) Ok then, show us the deity. (you can't.)

Following that same train of thought if I questioned the car I would ask to see HOW it was created and I would be shown the factory, the machines and the workers. If you, for some reason could not manage to grasp that concept then I might ask to see WHO did that. Show me Henry Ford and, if we had been alive 80 years ago you could have introduced me to him.

The point, dear sir, is that you have neither the process nor the designer. You have a story. And an incomplete, contradictory one at that. And, for a goodly number of years you have proven resistant to even the slightest attempt at reason, logic or education. Choosing instead deviousness, clownish behavior and purposeful misrepresentation which, for some unknown reason you seem proud of.

 

[JacksBratt]

Goats produce beer?

Comma's save lives..

Let's eat Grandma..

Let's eat, Grandma.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Comma's save lives..

Let's eat Grandma..

Let's eat, Grandma.....

Eats shoots and leaves.
Eats, shoots, and leaves...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

OK, where do you believe that the universe came from?

Contrary to your assertion, I don't believe it came from nothing.

Will you accept that I was right about your inability to support your assertions, or will you double down?

 

[Oaktree125]

Behold the terrible lizard!

I know it is just a stretch but I cant help point at the coincidence you show us here....

Clearly the myths about dragons are an outgrowth from observations of fossil dinosaurs. I mean it is almost a no-brainer given the size, teeth and winged (pterodactyl) nature of the various species. Ancient man surely didnt make a distinction between teeth shapes that indicated a vegetarian diet and clearly to me IMO the myths grew from real observations and guesswork.
In Scripture though we know that ancient evil (Rev 12:9) first as a feathered angel, then a serpent, then a dragon.
In the world we called it as a dragon first , then a serpent (reptilian)after studying it, and then a feathered fowl after realizing the similarities of our studies.


Of course it is just a coincidence to some...

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it is just a coincidence to some...

Cute little guy though, isn't he?

(The bird in the OP, that is.)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I know it is just a stretch but I cant help point at the coincidence you show us here....

Clearly the myths about dragons are an outgrowth from observations of fossil dinosaurs. I mean it is almost a no-brainer given the size, teeth and winged (pterodactyl) nature of the various species. Ancient man surely didnt make a distinction between teeth shapes that indicated a vegetarian diet and clearly to me IMO the myths grew from real observations and guesswork.

You've got to love it when somebody has no idea what they're talking about and calls their incorrect assumption a "no brainer."

In Scripture though we know that ancient evil (Rev 12:9) first as a feathered angel, then a serpent, then a dragon.
In the world we called it as a dragon first , then a serpent (reptilian)after studying it, and then a feathered fowl after realizing the similarities of our studies.


Of course it is just a coincidence to some...

Coincidence to some or ignorance of others?

 

[Shemjaza]

I know it is just a stretch but I cant help point at the coincidence you show us here....

Clearly the myths about dragons are an outgrowth from observations of fossil dinosaurs. I mean it is almost a no-brainer given the size, teeth and winged (pterodactyl) nature of the various species. Ancient man surely didnt make a distinction between teeth shapes that indicated a vegetarian diet and clearly to me IMO the myths grew from real observations and guesswork.
In Scripture though we know that ancient evil (Rev 12:9) first as a feathered angel, then a serpent, then a dragon.
In the world we called it as a dragon first , then a serpent (reptilian)after studying it, and then a feathered fowl after realizing the similarities of our studies.


Of course it is just a coincidence to some...

Traditional dragons were also much more of a grab bag of living animals... the modern consistently reptilian fantasy version is probably directly influenced by pop culture depictions of dinosaurs over the last century or so.

 

[Oaktree125]

Traditional dragons were also much more of a grab bag of living animals... the modern consistently reptilian fantasy version is probably directly influenced by pop culture depictions of dinosaurs over the last century or so.

"I am Smaug!"

 

[Bungle_Bear]

"I am Smaug!"

You know how, on old maps, it said "Here be dragons" on unexplored areas like North America? It really wasn't referring to Apatosaurus.

 

[Oaktree125]

You're almost there. You've posted both together now and just need a little push-about 3 more inches to the right you will see how modern man ALSO invents the myth of flying creatures to convey complex information. What you have depicted is a nobrainer, but it is not based on any observation of petrified remains. Ancient man did the same thing based on observation and attempts to explain what he was seeing. So it seems to me that you're telling me IDK and then doing the very thing Im talking about ancient man doing. Using cute piggies to create fantasy works of art doesnt make it different IMO since Im a degreed artist and familiar with man's imaginative works and methods of physical misrepresentation(reduced dimensionally).

But the OP is about dinosaurs in a Christian frame. Inside a Christian framework we can expect a certain composition (below from Wikipedia)to tie together the locations of aspects within the art (Scripture)that are deliberate placements by God since He chose a format that can support it verbally and in nature. If it is only coincidental to you Ok I think I said that IMO, but it can be more ie. that John's description in Revelations forms a triune of satanic attempts at imitation of the Trinity- or maybe it just doesnt lead us anywhere like the Koide formula, and thats ok.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You're almost there. You've posted both together now and just need a little push-about 3 more inches to the right you will see how modern man ALSO invents the myth of flying creatures to convey complex information. What you have depicted is a nobrainer, but it is not based on any observation of petrified remains. Ancient man did the same thing based on observation and attempts to explain what he was seeing. So it seems to me that you're telling me IDK and then doing the very thing Im talking about ancient man doing. Using cute piggies to create fantasy works of art doesnt make it different IMO since Im a degreed artist and familiar with man's imaginative works and methods of physical misrepresentation(reduced dimensionally).

But the OP is about dinosaurs in a Christian frame. Inside a Christian framework we can expect a certain composition (below from Wikipedia)to tie together the locations of aspects within the art (Scripture)that are deliberate placements by God since He chose a format that can support it verbally and in nature. If it is only coincidental to you Ok I think I said that IMO, but it can be more ie. that John's description in Revelations forms a triune of satanic attempts at imitation of the Trinity- or maybe it just doesnt lead us anywhere like the Koide formula, and thats ok.

I assume that meaningless tirade was aimed at me. I have no idea what point you're trying to make other than reinforcing that you do not understand dragon myths.

 

[AV1611VET]

I assume that meaningless tirade was aimed at me. I have no idea what point you're trying to make other than reinforcing that you do not understand dragon myths.

You myth them too!?

 

[Shemjaza]

You're almost there. You've posted both together now and just need a little push-about 3 more inches to the right you will see how modern man ALSO invents the myth of flying creatures to convey complex information. What you have depicted is a nobrainer, but it is not based on any observation of petrified remains. Ancient man did the same thing based on observation and attempts to explain what he was seeing. So it seems to me that you're telling me IDK and then doing the very thing Im talking about ancient man doing. Using cute piggies to create fantasy works of art doesnt make it different IMO since Im a degreed artist and familiar with man's imaginative works and methods of physical misrepresentation(reduced dimensionally).

But the OP is about dinosaurs in a Christian frame. Inside a Christian framework we can expect a certain composition (below from Wikipedia)to tie together the locations of aspects within the art (Scripture)that are deliberate placements by God since He chose a format that can support it verbally and in nature. If it is only coincidental to you Ok I think I said that IMO, but it can be more ie. that John's description in Revelations forms a triune of satanic attempts at imitation of the Trinity- or maybe it just doesnt lead us anywhere like the Koide formula, and thats ok.

I'm not 100% I follow your point.

Modern art of dragons and modern art of dinosaurs are absolutely just that, art... but that doesn't mean their inspiration is equal or equivalent.

The existence and structure of dinosaurs is a conclusion from evidence, dragons are mythological.

The beasts and dragons described Revelation are mostly assumed to be symbolic rather than literal monsters, but their descriptions make it clear that they aren't the same as modern fantasy dragons and they definitely aren't dinosaurs.

 

[AV1611VET]

The existence and structure of dinosaurs is a conclusion from evidence, dragons are mythological.

Dragons, along with other cryptids that pwn evolution's paradigms are depicted in the Bible as real.

Here's a list:

1. coneys
2. whale-fish
3. satyrs
4. unicorns
5. straw-eating lions
6. four-legged locusts
7. dragons
8. dinosaurs with navels (behemoths)

 

[Shemjaza]

Dragons, along with other cryptids that pwn evolution's paradigms are depicted in the Bible as real.

Here's a list:

1. coneys
2. whale-fish
3. satyrs
4. unicorns
5. straw-eating lions
6. four-legged locusts
7. dragons
8. dinosaurs with navels (behemoths)

You use pwn in a very weird way.

The non-existence of some of these creatures is evidence that the Bible isn't true in a strictly literal sense.

(Coney is a English word for rabbits that is applied to middle eastern animals not known to King James' fallible, human translators.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The non-existence of some of these creatures is evidence that the Bible isn't true in a strictly literal sense.

Science has a way of disavowing any existence of things in the Bible that have names and characteristics that don't fit their own man-made paradigms.

 

[Kylie]

Behold the terrible lizard!

I behold. Is there a point? Any discussion you wish to engage in?

 

[Shemjaza]

Science has a way of disavowing any existence of things in the Bible that have names and characteristics that don't fit their own man-made paradigms.

I don't think it's reasonable to characterise not accepting things that don't we have evidence for or even a clear description of as "disavowing any existence of".

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think it's reasonable to characterise not accepting things that don't we have evidence for or even a clear description of as "disavowing any existence of".

Well they certainly don't acknowledge them.