Dragnix.Net

Hey, one of my best friends is Swedish! >.> I think....XD

just found out im also part welsh

The dutch are cool cause they are the only nordic to have ports in the carribean

Getting back on topic...

Could the Dragons actually be Dinosaurs? seeing as how there were no "Dinosaurs" before 1841 when the word was invented but perhaps Dinosaurs existed and were called Dragons? Now of course who wants to live next door to a humongous animal no matter what its diet? most of these dinosaurs were hunted to extinction in the 4000 years after Noah's flood in the christian bible for their meat and for people who wanted to be a hero for generations....now of course there are probably under 50-100 "Dragons" or "Dinosaurs" left in the world but could they be the sea monsters of Loch Ness? and many other lakes?

I think the dudes actually got a point.
Cos there is some logic in this.
Just we don't know for sure yet.

"Most of these Dinosaurs were hunted to extinction in the 4000 years after Noah's flood in the christian Bible for their meat(...)"

1)Dragons aren't stupid enough to get themselves eaten.
2)and can you prove to me that this "flood" that is mentioned in the Bible actually existed?I know I may be insulting Christians when I say this,but I think the Bible is just a storybook about a guy and was written nearly a hundred years after his death,so there are bound to be loads of different versions and the story of the flood could have been exagerated(sp?) there were surely large floods when the temperatures after the Ice Age and the vast glaciers that covered nearly the whole northern hemisphere receded back to the poles,but even if both the Poles melted completely,there isn't enough water in the whole world to drown every living thing that breathed oxygen.
I think the story of Noah's flood is an exagerated story of a flood that happened near the time of the Ice-Age and was passed down verbally through the generations,getting more and more fantastic with each time it was told.

It was probably quite difficult for kangaroo to swim thousands of miles to reach Noah, I suppose it wasn't easy for moose either to swim across the Atlantic. However, all these tasks look like a piece of cake compared to what Noah had on his plate.

Noah, like pretty much everyone at that time, had very little engineering background and he had a workforce so small that you could count the individual worker on one hand. This alone cast doubt that he was able to build a seafaring vessels. But claiming that he managed to build a ship so big that it would be able to carry two individuals of each species, is ridiculous (and that is an understatement). Such craft would dwarf the ships used by Columbus when he "discovered" America (those ships were between 70 - 87 feet long), in fact such craft would be around the size of an aircraft carrier.

Keep in mind that a ship of this size made of wood would simply collapse on it own weight and at that time there was no technology to create large metal hull, less alone solder everything together.

Lastly, water simply cannot appear out of nowhere to drown everyone on Earth. Some region may be drowned but the whole Earth, that an impossibility.

The morale of the story. Noah didn't really exist. Genetic has proven a long time ago that the 6 billions people on Earth are not actually a big bunch of inbreed. There is no vestige or remain of such excessively large construction. The workforce was simply not there to create such ship, even if there were an entire regiment of workers at Noah's disposal, the technology and expertise needed weren't available yet and most animals wouldn't have been able to reach the dustoff point anyway.


Note: I can't believe I have made a "nicer" version of what I originally intended to post...

Aiolos wrote:No, but it is scientificly impossible for anything larger than a horse to survive in Loch Ness. If you believe something hard enough, you'll see it. I did a project on lake monsters for a science assignment at school, and came across this wonderful website. It convinced me that NOTHING lives in Loch Ness. Not even a dragon could survive in it. http://www.plesiosaur.com/lochness.php

I encourage you to read that. After you have, give me three logical explinations of the Loch Ness Monster.

Hey, I say a sonar picture and underwater picture of nessie.

ok about noah
im a catholic, and this is what the bible is and is not
the Bible is NOT one book-it is a library of books by different authors with different styles
not everything in the bible is complete fact. some of it is poetry, some of it is fables with a moral to them. this is probably where noah fits in. and revelation. and the creation stories. now exodus, deutoronomy and such are probably real. and there are roman records that a Jesus did exist and was cruicified as a rebel. so some of it is fact, but not everything
----------
yeah i went to the website and i never thought nessie was a plesiosaur. i think it's a bunch of mammals that can be compared to fish, reptiles, and amphibians but are a weird mix (like a platypus-it can happen)

Thank you D-fly. For clarifying for us that Jesus did exist and that some if not most of the Bible is true. I am also Christian and I do believe in the Bible. I understand that most of the stories might have been and most likely have been blown out of proportion, like the Great Flood story. The Bible makes it seem like Noah and his family recreated the entire world. I'm guessing Pangea came into the picture because how did we get continents hmmm??? Once you think about the Bible, I mean, some stuff is completely illogical just plain wrong. Like Adam and Eve. Only having their three sons, yes three, Cain, Abel and Seth. There had to have been another girl somewhere along the line or the sons would have had to sleep with their mother. Am I right or am I right? Back on subject, I think dragons might have been a cousin of dinosaurs just because their descriptions are so alike. I don't think they are full dinosaurs though because in dragon's descriptions, they were highly intelligent and would not have gotten killed off because of anything hunting them down. They are too intelligent for that.

shydragonet wrote:I mean, some stuff is completely illogical just plain wrong. Like Adam and Eve. Only having their three sons, yes three, Cain, Abel and Seth. There had to have been another girl somewhere along the line or the sons would have had to sleep with their mother. Am I right or am I right?

....Ew

I'm sticking to the science/pagan side of things. -shrug-

dragonfly wrote:ok about noah
im a catholic, and this is what the bible is and is not
the Bible is NOT one book-it is a library of books by different authors with different styles
not everything in the bible is complete fact. some of it is poetry, some of it is fables with a moral to them. this is probably where noah fits in. and revelation. and the creation stories. now exodus, deutoronomy and such are probably real. and there are roman records that a Jesus did exist and was cruicified as a rebel. so some of it is fact, but not everything

And how the do you know that? Historical records are notorious for being incomplete. And what about when people kept insisting that the Bible had been hand-copied so many times that it was inaccurate? The Dead Sea Scrolls had them adrift at sea without an ark, so to speak. And Tempest, no offense, but nowhere in the Bible does it state that Noah took adults on the ark. A dino or bird egg takes up maybe one cubic foot? And also Noah had almost a hundred years to create the ark. And who says he had no carpentry experience? Who says that gopher wood (which by the way is extinct) wasn't somehow the ideal ship-building material? I GET SO UPSET WHEN PEOPLE INSIST THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*takes deep breath* I'm sorry i yelled, but when people insist that the Bible is a mix of truth and lie, it ticks me off. It's either a complete lie or the absolute truth; this is neither the place nor the time to debate that.

@Tempest: The geological record states that the Earth's surface use to be a lot smoother.

@shydragonet: The bible states that "Adam begat sons and daughters". They married their sisters. The laws against incest - and the need for them - would not appear for centuries.

@Silv: Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. That is a myth spread by morons who wouldnt know science if it bit them in their .
Not that you're a moron; millions believe it.

@Falconer
okay, so you have a library near you, right? so there's a bunch of books that are written by different authors in different time periods who might not have even known each other existed? Some of the books are fiction, with morals, some are fact, some are censuses, some are tax records, some are newspapers, some are legends and myths, some are cultural reports, some are biographies, some are poems, some are autobiographies...you get the point.
Now, just because some books in the library are fiction, doesn't mean that the rest are, too.
Also, the Bible wasn't a book at first. Somebody a looooooong time ago decided to copy down some cool stories about God into an anthology and other people kept adding stuff and someone gave it a name. Then the faiths separated and other people added different stuff, and others took out some stuff and others refused to acknowledge the existence of some stuff. It's called history.

ok I'm done now.

falconer within the bible there are parables and all sorts, stories that have a deeper meaning and moral, we cannot say that it is either completly true or completly false as some of it may just be stories with deeper meanings

Falconer wrote:@Silv: Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. That is a myth spread by morons who wouldnt know science if it bit them in their .
Not that you're a moron; millions believe it.

Ok - so you're saying I can't believe in both hmm? Oh well, maybe I should keep mein opinions to myself.

Wow, that was quick.

@Dragonfly:

Also, the Bible wasn't a book at first. Somebody a looooooong time ago decided to copy down some cool stories about God into an anthology and other people kept adding stuff and someone gave it a name. Then the faiths separated and other people added different stuff, and others took out some stuff and others refused to acknowledge the existence of some stuff.

And how do you know that?

@Silv: No, what I meant was that science and religion are supposed to support each other. True science does. It's the false science that accuses religion as being fantasy, when it itself is becoming a religion - the worship of self, of one's own ability to think and reason.

@Akira: Moral or no moral, there is no biblical story that isn't acclaimed elsewhere as true. The Apostle Paul said that Adam was a real person; Jesus said the same of David. This brings us to the lead confrontation of the Bible being either a complete lie, or the complete truth, and that is something left to each person to decide which they believe.

@Dragonfly: Actually, i'm sitting in the library right now.

Falconer wrote: @Tempest: The geological record states that the Earth's surface use to be a lot smoother.

What? What little change there has been still does not explain a world wide flood. But there is evidence for large local floods. Just check for pics for modern floods you can believe people who didn't go farther than 50 miles max from their home town would think the world was covered with water.

Falconer wrote:And also Noah had almost a hundred years to create the ark

I didn't see that on the first read through, hua? Where did it say that? I really need to reread some stuff.



And please remember all the bible as we know it was spliced together by a group from the Roman Catholic Church. These texts were first written by "profits" or what have you. And most of these texts have been through a number of translation over the years. For example I skimmed through a bible a friend of mine had (written for the young reader) and it was written in "easier" English than the normal King James copy, a large number of scripts were somewhat off from the "true" text. So anything written in the bible in your lap my not mean exactly what it says. Someone had to think they were writing a passage easier for others to understand, and "changed" wording some.

Also, the number of unused books of the bible and the other versions of Christian Bibles, show things need to be taken at arms length.

My favorite unused books are the ones that have fully written the incest of Adam and Eve, and the book of the younger years of Mary mother of Jesus.
(not used so a woman would not be given such a large part in the bible.)

vampirehunter42 wrote:Also, the number of unused books of the bible and the other versions of Christian Bibles, show things need to be taken at arms length.

My favorite unused books are the ones that have fully written the incest of Adam and Eve, and the book of the younger years of Mary mother of Jesus.
(not used so a woman would not be given such a large part in the bible.)

The reason they aren't used is because their basic theology is off. They are not left off because of some male chauvonist conspiracy. The historical accuracy is up for grabs. Personnaly, I like reading Macabees. It is a great account of the Hebrew's War for Independance.

vampirehunter wrote:What little change there has been still does not explain a world wide flood.

Geologists calculated that if the Earth was smoother, levelling the continents and raising the sea beds, the oceans would cover the Earth. They already cover someting like 70% anyway.

Geologists calculated that if the Earth was smoother, levelling the continents and raising the sea beds, the oceans would cover the Earth. They already cover someting like 70% anyway.

So in the time of Noah the world was smooth? I may be Lutheran but the copy of the bible I read said there were mountions around. Or was there only one? And all of the sea floors at the time were smooth as well?

And it is 75%.

Note; Ended on August 9th. Restarted on September 20th.

Not to mention that you two are travelling into the thin iced areas. Discuss it via whispers.

Dead, buried, locked.

Sorry Chalgrish but this is a case where I need to abuse of my Admin power to set a few things straight before leaving this topic to rest.

Falconer wrote:And Tempest, no offense, but nowhere in the Bible does it state that Noah took adults on the ark.

Taking aim at a single point in my long post and ignoring the rest, is like denting the gate of a castle and claimimg to have taken it down. The problem isn't the size of individual animal (of course, this play in the equation), it the shear amount of species. You want us to believe that Noah was able to cram +5000 mammal species, +8000 reptile species and +9000 bird species (make those numbers double to have a male and a female of each) in a single ship that should care and feed roughly 45000 animals for 40 days. Maybe you don't appreciate the collective size those animals would take no matter their age (note that animals aren't stackable). Which get back to my original point that even when using the largest ship available in the Renaissance (that benefited from a lot more technology and expertise than what Noah had access), this is simply impossible.

Also, the argument of babies and eggs take less space meet a technical problem. No one can tell by looking at an egg if it contains a male or a female and for many reptile species, it's not quite clear even during the development. Moreover, baby are way harder to keep alive, have weak immune system, they proportionally eat more and are definitively more susceptible to diseases, sudden death or injuries (i.e. they are on a ship, and sanitary condition probably range from bad to very bad). Also, eggs require a temperature-controlled environment to survive and honestly, you can't seriously expect us to believe that Noah was able to convince 17000 mated pair to lay their egg at the same time. Beside, most bird egg will hatch within 40 days (ex: a chicken egg take 21 day to hatch), just imagine how the poor guy could have kept all those featherless baby birds warm and feed them. Now do you understand how silly this story is.

Falconer wrote:And also Noah had almost a hundred years to create the ark. And who says he had no carpentry experience? Who says that gopher wood (which by the way is extinct) wasn't somehow the ideal ship-building material?

No he didn't have a hundred years.
1- he need to learn the appropriate skills (scratch all his childhood and a good part of his years as a teen).
2- A construction made of wood will deteriorate with time; thus you can't just spread the work over his entire life (or over several generations). At one point, the additional construction will not longer hold on the rotten older parts. They didn't have treated wood back then (properly preservative-treated wood used today can have 5 to 10 times the service life of untreated wood), he was thus very limited in time.
3- It doesn't really matter what kind of wood as long as it is strong enough for construction. Unless your gopher wood is magical, it can rot and it as a maximum strength that is light years away from metal. A large cargo ship made entirely of wood simply cannot exist.
4- Carpentry is one kind of skill, but it take engineering skills to build a seafaring vessel. Skill that was obviously not available at the time since engineering requires understanding of physics concepts that weren't discovered yet. There was also no trial and error to help him since the ships at the time were rather small (by today's standard). So Noah would have to create a ship much larger than anything that existed at the time, all by himself without any expertise.

Falconer wrote:I'm sorry i yelled, but when people insist that the Bible is a mix of truth and lie, it ticks me off. It's either a complete lie or the absolute truth; this is neither the place nor the time to debate that.
…
Moral or no moral, there is no biblical story that isn't acclaimed elsewhere as true. The Apostle Paul said that Adam was a real person; Jesus said the same of David. This brings us to the lead confrontation of the Bible being either a complete lie, or the complete truth, and that is something left to each person to decide which they believe.

The only thing right in this statement is that this isn't the place for such... "debate".

The "either this or that" is what in debate people call a false dilemma. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious (in this case) because both claims could be false.

The fact is: some part of the (or any) book may be true and some other parts are not. Like dragonfly said, there is evidence that there was indeed someone you was named "Jesus" who lived around that time and was executed. This is an evidence. However, that doesn't mean Adam and Eves were real, or that Jonas spend 40 days inside of a whale or that Jesus did any miracle. Just because a book say that something is true doesn't mean that the whole book is true and it doesn't mean that because there is something false that the book only contains lies.

Falconer wrote:The geological record states that the Earth's surface use to be a lot smoother.

Geologists calculated that if the Earth was smoother, levelling the continents and raising the sea beds, the oceans would cover the Earth. They already cover someting like 70% anyway.

You seem to confuse the terms "evidence" and "purely theoretical situation". Geological records show no such thing as a "smoother Earth". Since you haven't brought the slightest evidence to back up this claim, I will just assume you made that up because geological evidence proves without a shadow of doubt that most mountain formations today are millions years old.

Falconer wrote:Science and religion are not diametrically opposed. That is a myth spread by morons who wouldnt know science if it bit them in their *swearing*
…
No, what I meant was that science and religion are supposed to support each other.

Do you know what sciences is about? Sciences are an independent methodology: it is not supposed to support a particular religion, a particular political system or a particular ideology.

The very doctrine of religion is to follow a set of dogma that can't be challenged or questioned. The source of religion find its roots in the inability of people to explain natural phenomena (the thunder in the sky is caused by Zeus because he is angry, Hades take care of the dead, etc...) and was preserved today with the use of appeal to ignorance ("Wow, I mean, like, just LOOK at how complex the world is, and how COOL we humans are; God MUST have done it!"). Disregarding the fact that the same things explained today used to be god's doing a few centuries ago.

On the other hand, sciences are a methodology based on observable facts and experiments. A scientist seeks evidences to back up his/her claims and present them to his/her peer. Those people then repeat the experiments and double-check the claim. A scientist spend most of his/her time finding logical explanations to phenomena that are considered as magic by the average Joe.

When one side spend a lot of energy to debunk the other, and that at one point in history religion actively persecuted men of sciences, one can safely say that they are opposed.

Falconer wrote:True science does. It's the false science that accuses religion as being fantasy, when it itself is becoming a religion - the worship of self, of one's own ability to think and reason.

So now we have "true science" and "false science". It is "false science" when it debunk your religion and pointing out that there is no evidence of the existence of gods, goddess, or any supernatural being. Sorry, but at this point you should understand that sciences doesn't take side; it simply tell the facts (if you like them or not, it is no concern of serious scientists). As for god being a fantasy, the burden of the proof lie entirely on the shoulders of the believers. It is up to them to prove His existance and it is not to non-believers to prove that god doesn't exist, nor it is to the listener to prove that there is no such thing as psychic power or invisible pink unicorn when someone claims the existence of such things. But so far, honest people of science understand that if no one ever detected, seen, heard, touched, smelled or even tasted this almighty being, then logically he doesn't exist. And, it doesn't mean that because there is no invisible being in the sky that we have to worship ourselves, or our ability to think or the nearest rock.