Sightings etc of creatures that lived millions of years ago

Want to discuss something else? Anything goes here!

Moderator: Bmat

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Sightings etc of creatures that lived millions of years ago

Post by Dark Knight »

Fully title:

Sightings, drawings, art, representations in objects, of creatures that reportedly lived millions of years ago

This subject maybe problematic, however he goes….

Have you ever heard of a sighting of an animal that lived reportedly millions of years ago?

These animals are usual meant to have died out millions of years ago….

So how do you get a reported sighting or drawing of the animal that is only a few hundred years old?

Yet objects, drawings and sightings show these animals….

Some objects are old, like a couple of thousand years old, but definitely not millions of years old…..

Did these people dig up the bones and then put them together, so they could make the objects that look like the animals, or did they actual see the animal?

There is no evidence that they put the bones together…..

You will probably turn and head for the hills, when I again suggest that they saw the animal, or is there another explanation…

Then again you may think that it is impossible that they saw the animal, and that these sightings etc can be all explained away.

You may decide not to look at the evidence and that is fine, you may think I am pushing my own boat {here he goes again}, and you want no part of it…

You may think that these sightings etc prove nothing and you can think that way…

Now I will post an entry about one....
Last edited by Dark Knight on Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
LightBrigade
Site Regular
Site Regular
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:17 pm
Location: Athens, Hellas, where myths live.

Post by LightBrigade »

Do you mean animals like giant calamari, giant squids or giant octopuses fishermen talk about, for example?
Last edited by LightBrigade on Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Magus
Writer Extraordinaire
Writer Extraordinaire
Posts: 10536
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Post by Magus »

Mmmmmm... them's tasty eats.

:wink:

Or, perhaps, are you talking about dinosaurs (which seems to be the primary topic of discussion as of late)?

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Not just Giant animals, but any animal that lived millions of years ago....

Like dragons, flying mammals....

User avatar
Magus
Writer Extraordinaire
Writer Extraordinaire
Posts: 10536
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Post by Magus »

Honestly, from everything I've read/seen, I don't think that there're very many people who persist that dragons were ever an actuality per se, but that they were simply projections of fear/instinct buried in the human psyche onto certain creatures.

For instance, the aforementioned show on the History Channel that I watched a while back (the one I mentioned on another topic) made this assertion, stating that the dragon takes components from three primary predators of ancient man: the snake, the lion and the bird (I can't remember specifically which bird, perhaps an eagle or a hawk). And, through this, it's simply a compilation of ancient instincts used to ward our ancestors away from certain creatures. And, certainly, there were many such creatures that, from afar, with this instinctual context in mind, could have been mistaken as a dragon by early man.

They also made a case that early findings of dinosaur bones were mistaken as dragon bones, as people at the time had no means of knowing how to properly assemble the bones, and their attempts did very much resemble our idea of dragons.

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Early Flying Mammal Found In China
-Lived 125-130 Million Years Ago Says Science
Give or Take 125 Million to 130 Million Years?


Photo:“Reconstruction of Volaticotherium antiquus. (Credit: Chuang Zhao and Lida Xing)

Johannes Nieuhof published a book on China in 1669 with Illustrations called “Of the Empire of China”. The book contained info on the flora and fauna of China as well as various curiosities. To the untrained eye (and I’ve got two of them) his drawing of a certain apparently voluminous flying mammal looks quite a bit like the 125 million year old mammal (SIC) that certain evolutionary scientists (SIC) are very excited about….s8int.com

Small Furry Mammal Was Capable Of Gliding Flight Possibly Before Birds; Science Daily

An American Museum of Natural History paleontologist and his colleagues have named a new order of mammals based on their description of a fossil of a bat- or squirrel-sized Mesozoic mammal, called Volaticotherium antiquus (meaning “ancient gliding beast”), which was capable of gliding flight The rock beds that yielded the fossil date to at least 125 million years ago, so the new fossil extends the earliest record for gliding flight in mammals by 70 million years or more and indicates that mammals experimented with gliding flight and aerial life at about the same time that birds first took to the skies, possibly even earlier. The team also completed an analysis of the evolutionary relationships among major groups of known Mesozoic mammals, which included the new data on V. antiquus.The results, described in a new paper in the journal Nature, revealed that the gliding Mesozoic mammal represents a previously unknown and highly specialized group of mammals that the authors recognize as a new order of mammals. This is a previously unknown group and one of the most important discoveries or designations of a major mammalian group since Richard Owen’s review of Mesozoic mammals in 1871. The authors of the new paper are Jin Meng, Associate Curator in the Museum’s Division of Paleontology; and his colleagues Yaoming Hu, Yuanqing Wang, Xiaolin Wang, and Chuankui Li, researchers at the of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing.

The fossil of the gliding mammal, discovered in eastern Mongolia, preserves the animal’s skeleton, as well as an impression of most of a large fold of skin membrane that stretched between the animal’s fore and hind limbs, the direct evidence that the animal was adapted for gliding flight. The membrane, known as a patagium, served as an airfoil to support the small animal’s weight and generated lift for it to travel horizontally through the air.

The fossil also preserves impressions of the fur that was found on the gliding membrane and on other parts of the body, one of the earliest records of the skin covering that is typical of mammals. The animal’s limbs are elongated, which is typical for living gliding mammals. Longer bones allow for more skeletal and muscular support of a glider’s airfoil.

The fossil vertebrae suggest that the animal had a long, stiff tail that served as a stabilizing rudder during gliding flight. The lengths of the animal’s skull and skeleton suggest that V. antiquus weighed less than a pound, so it had a relatively light load in flight. Being lightweight and possessing a relatively large airfoil, V. antiquus was likely an agile glider, but perhaps not agile enough to chase insects as prey through the air.

Unlike living mammal gliders that are predominately herbivorous, the unique, highly specialized sharp teeth of V. antiquus provide evidence that this mammal was undoubtedly an insectivore, like most known Mesozoic mammals. Other features of the animal’s limb and finger and toe bones indicate it was a climber, which allowed it to forage on trees and obtain height for gliding, as in the case of flying squirrels.

V. antiquus is the first known Mesozoic mammal capable of gliding flight, indicating that early mammals were more diverse in their early evolution than scientists had previously thought and also that unknown groups of mammals still remain for paleontologists to discover, buried in geologic time.

“This new evidence of gliding flight in early mammals is giving us a dramatically new picture of many of the animals that lived in the Age of Dinosaurs,” Dr. Meng said. “Establishing a new order probably only happens once, if that, in the lifetime of a lucky paleomammalogist.”

Prior to the description of V. antiquus, the earliest known gliding mammal was a rodent—known from a 30-million-year old fossil preserving the gliding membrane. The earliest confirmed record of bats, also aerial mammals but capable of powered flight rather than gliding flight, dates to about 51 million years ago. The newly discovered fossil shows that mammals experimented with aerial life at least 70 million years earlier than previously thought.

Although the new gliding mammal is comparable in size and shape to flying squirrels (which are members of Rodentia, an order of placental mammals), V. antiquus is not a direct ancestor of these or any other living mammals, including flying marsupials, flying lemurs, or bats. Instead, V. antiquus provides evidence for the independent origin of flight in this now-extinct lineage of mammals.
from http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=532

checkout images:
Photo 3: Left, less than 400 years ago. Right, 130 million years ago?
Images at http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=532

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Honestly, from everything I've read/seen, I don't think that there're very many people who persist that dragons were ever an actuality per se, but that they were simply projections of fear/instinct buried in the human psyche onto certain creatures.

For instance, the aforementioned show on the History Channel that I watched a while back (the one I mentioned on another topic) made this assertion, stating that the dragon takes components from three primary predators of ancient man: the snake, the lion and the bird (I can't remember specifically which bird, perhaps an eagle or a hawk). And, through this, it's simply a compilation of ancient instincts used to ward our ancestors away from certain creatures. And, certainly, there were many such creatures that, from afar, with this instinctual context in mind, could have been mistaken as a dragon by early man.

They also made a case that early findings of dinosaur bones were mistaken as dragon bones, as people at the time had no means of knowing how to properly assemble the bones, and their attempts did very much resemble our idea of dragons.
That is where you be wrong…. I guess you don’t hang around creation sites… Oh no I said the c word…oh well….

Many creationists would say that people saw dinosaurs and called these dragons….

So yes sightings of dinosaurs, which they called dragons…

History Channel… well people who make those shows believe in evolution, to them there is no way a dinosaur could be seen by man, man came on the seen millions of years after dinosaurs died out…Hence they come up with these explanations, however they where not with the people…they did not see what the person saw…

And you say the creature was far away, how do they know that?

Was early man halve blind?

This early man business, like early man was some dummy…

They as you put it “made a case”, I make a different case…

They saw dinosaurs and called them dragons…

User avatar
Magus
Writer Extraordinaire
Writer Extraordinaire
Posts: 10536
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Post by Magus »

people who make those shows believe in evolution
People who watch that also believe in evolution. Simply believing in Evolution doesn't denote any particular belief in religion or theology. For instance, I cannot name anybody that I know who doesn't believe in evolution, and pretty well all of them are some denomination of christian (with a few exceptions). And I personally hold that evolution not only can fit in a biblical context, but can actually be mutually explanative of it.
they did not see what the person saw…
No, granted. But, even from Medieval times, they have documentation (through journal entries, letters and other such writings) of people making such claims of what they've seen, as well as several specimens of what said people based their writings off of. So it's not simply wild speculation on their part, although some of their assertions, to some degree, are (but no more than any religious speculation on a similar topic).
Was early man halve blind?

This early man business, like early man was some dummy…
Norse sailors saw whales and thought that they were sea serpents. Other european sailors saw manatees and thought that they were mermaids. Medieval explorers saw a particular breed of goat from the side, where their two horns seemed, to them, to be one, and thought that they were looking at unicorns.

You don't think that there's an equally simple explaination for dragons?

I had a conversation with my good friend Noel a few days ago (the same conversation I Pmed you about earlier). He said something to me that I will never forget, and the instant I heard it I knew that it described me as well:

"I'm an athiest with my head, but a Christian with my heart."

User avatar
LightBrigade
Site Regular
Site Regular
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:17 pm
Location: Athens, Hellas, where myths live.

Post by LightBrigade »

Magus wrote:Or, perhaps, are you talking about dinosaurs (which seems to be the primary topic of discussion as of late)?
Precisely what I have been trying to find out on the opening post myself; multiple threading :wink:
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sightings : now with genetic engineering, we are well about to see creatures which lived before man appeared. Or hybrids of them, at worst.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Evolution :
Of the here above discussion, I understand that one who believes in Creation following the Bible, The Old Testament more specifically, without any deviation or attempt at interpretation but taking every word exactly for what it strictly means, is in some way thought to be against any attempt to consider Science as a tool of investigation regarding the Historic existence or creation of man and the universe.

In few words, anyone who wishes to be called a Christian, is not to accept anything different as true than what The Old Testament says about Creation. And anyone who accepts anything different, can not be a Christian.

Have I understood correctly, I must wonder.

User avatar
Ariel
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 9530
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 5:05 pm
Location: Rhode Island,U.S.A

Post by Ariel »

I don't exist? :shock:

Image

User avatar
Llew
True Visionary
True Visionary
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Maine

Post by Llew »

Ariel wrote:I don't exist? :shock:

Image
Ohh...you know, I think it's time to re-thing my theology. :lol:
“I Speak Spanish to God, Italian to Women, French to Men, and German to My Horse” - Charles V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, 1500–58

User avatar
aldan
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Ohio, right now...
Contact:

Post by aldan »

Um, how does one 're-thing' something? How does one 'thing' something, for that matter??
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and to appear stupid than
to open it and remove all doubt."
---Mark Twain

Post Reply