Pterodactyls Sightings: Is it Real?

[einsteinian77]

I know some of these are explainable but what about the pterodactyls at the bottom? It says two of the photographs are in some dinosaur book.

http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/evolutio.htm[/URL]

I know this thing won't work but you should check it out anyway.

 

[FZ+]

Yep. These guys are nutters. Better yet, fanaticaly religious creationist nutters.

Let's do photo by photo...

1. Yes, it is exactly contested. And searches have been conducted. With sonar and everything you can think of. And that Loch Ness is infamous for its unpredictable tides which play on the mind. And that conveniently, none of the pictures give any indication of scale. And that obviously in secluded areas, some animals can escape extinction. Its happened to fish, and we have the repeat of the old BS about evolution being a conspiracy and all...

2. That is a dolphin. The neck is plainly not a neck because of the way it clear flops about.

3. Thousands of people want to see it. The psychology of this sort of thing is well documented. Again, no reference for scale.

4. That's right. It has been mutilated. No wonder it looks monstrous. So who said it was a dino?

5. Again, no scale reference. And the people at cambridge didn't think much of it. And no reason why it can't be a big fish or anything.

6. Apparently, these folks haven't heard of decomposition. The "neck" is part of the rib cage, people...

7. Er wait... It says that reptiles are really dinosaurs in disguise, and it's all a trick by those dastardy evolutionists... Er... okaaayy... Just point out though that if these folks call komodo dragons and indeed all reptiles to be dinosaurs, then evolution doesn't say dinosaurs went extinct. Hell, evolution doesn't say anything about dinos having to be extinct - piles upon piles of paleontological evidence says that.

(Hmm... can I just point out now that the creationist angle of highlighting left overs is actually utterly irrelevant.)

8. Chinese peasants are infamous throughout the paleontological community for fabricating haox skeletons, which can only be revealed by careful xrays. They sell for $50 dollar a dozen.

9. Haox. The picture of the head is that of a bald eagle. The pictures also directly rebut the text, which says the creature is the size of a small plane, whilst here... its not. Hang glider in the second case most likely.

Still, good to know that these folks have finally cottoned on to the existence of dinosaurs these days, after saying all this time they are made up to oppose the bible...

 

[einsteinian77]

what about the civil war pictures I am pretty sure one is fake but the other two are said to be in a scientific dinosaur book. Yup these people are bit fanatic/borderline retarded when it comes to bible talk. I forgot to mention to look under the live dragon pics link at the bottom left corner that's where the pterodactyl pics are.

 

[FZ+]

what about the civil war pictures I am pretty sure one is fake but the other two are said to be in a scientific dinosaur book.

Well, the link given is far from scientific. (Words like "Spiritual Parody" and claims that "Scientists break speed of light" or "Thermodynamics means everything grows old and wears out" do not good science make.)

Checking up on the book mentioned seems to make it clear that the source was misrepresented and taken out of context. In fact, the site linked to does admit the possibility that some of the photos were staged haoxes, though this is glossed over. From review on Amazon...

A detailed examination of the world of dinosaurs, their appearance, behavior, and families, describing current theories about their extinction and explaining how paleontologists study their fossilized remains.

And Wellnhoffer also wrote a book on the evolution of dinosaurs...

 

[Jonathan]

I have posted on this before, though it related to Herodotus' account of having seen flying reptiles in Egypt and Arabia. I still have not made up my mind about that, but the site provided is really grasping at straws. The lake Champlain monster shown could be a dark bird at an odd angle, or a hoax, of course. It's kinda like seeing pictues in clouds, but the neck would be one wing and body would be the other, and I can't really make out the body of the 'bird' or the direction it was flying, but I hope you see what I mean. I do want to point out that I am religious and see several flaws with evolution, but it is really more of quabling over semantics. I would just love it if they found an actual dino. I did hear of a report, I think I read it was 1915, of some German sub (if it was a Uboat then I got the date wrong or the source was fanatical and wrong) that had just sunk a british ship, and for some reason they had surfaced(I don't know if they usually did that, but I doubt it) and the Captain and some of the crew saw a great sea monster rise up out of the water, apparently it had been injured, and then sink back in. It happened fast enough that they didn't get a picture, but if they would have I'm sure it would have turned out to be swamp gas anyway , and I don't know if it made a noise. I f I can find a site that mentions it, I will edit this post and put it here. If this story is true, I think it would be the most credible ever.
As to the Lock Ness monster, I am not impressed by the fact that they haven't found it, because if on the off chance the monster can hear or feel the sound of the sonar, it/they will spend the whole day out-running the ships because I imagine it would be an unpleasant sensation. Keep in mind that they can't possibly, or at least haven't as far as I know, line up enough ships to seep the whole cross section and then length of the lock, which then leaves plenty of run for the monster/s to go around the few ships without detection to a side of the lock they've alrady covered. Then again that would have to be one warm blooded, blubbery animal to keep from freezing in that lock.
EDIT:
http://www.biblefocus.com/docs/truth_about_dinos.doc
I have not read it all yet, it doesn't seem too extreme from what I've skimmed, if you don't want to read it all the part I'm posting about is in section III:B,C;but the whole thing looks like a good, but of course I should add having not read it, possibly wrong, read. FZ+, I would like to know your take on, well, all of section C, since it is so short. I've heard of those human and dino tracks before, but never enough to even begin to decide on their truth or hoaxness (if I may be so bold as to make up my own words).

 

[Zero]

Hey, Jonathan, just because you are religious, it doesn't mean you can't spot a hoax when you see one, does it? You and lots of people would like the world to be different from what it is, but odds are, all of this stuff will continue to be nonsense.

 

[Jonathan]

I don't understand your question, esp. given that I pointed out in my previous post that the Lake Champlain monster picture could easily be a bird. Did you go to the website and look? If you think about it, you kinda see it. It could also be a boomarang that was moving fast enough to blur during the time it took to take the picture. In fact i occurs to me now that I have seen the picture before, that is not all of it, this is a blow up, you can see the other side of the lake in the whole one, and the witness claims that it was at 150ft, which fits roughly with the picture. That means that the bird would have had to have a 6 foot wingspan (I got that number from the TV show I now remember seeing, it was a skeptic who came up with it, I assume he used trig). Maybe this is actually a picture of a pterodactyl at an odd angle.

 

[Jonathan]

Sorry, I made a mistake, the part I was referring to in that link is IV:B:4:C
*EDIT* I just looked it up and found that Uboats did exist in 1917, and the date was 1915, so that isn't too far off, so they likely did exist then.

 

[wasteofo2]

The very fact that they say "dragons aren't extinct" shows that they're dumbasses, since dragons never existed in the first place.

Originally posted by FZ+


2. That is a dolphin. The neck is plainly not a neck because of the way it clear flops about.

6. Apparently, these folks haven't heard of decomposition. The "neck" is part of the rib cage, people...

about 2, I disagree that it's a dolphin, the head is far too large in comparison to the people to be that of a dolphin, assuming the picture is totally genuine, i can't tell what it is. I do however, know that pleasiasaur breathed air and could support themselves out of water. The way the neck is all flacid is sort of how invertibrates look when washed up on land, whiel pleasiasaur had strong enough skeletal structures to support themselves out of water.

about 6, I'm curious to see what kind of animal you think that is, the flippers are bigger than those of a sperm whale would be, if only there were photos of its hind quarters...

about http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/fish_prehistoric.jpg
It's a stergeon...

 

[ShawnD]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
The very fact that they say "dragons aren't extinct" shows that they're dumbasses, since dragons never existed in the first place.

Don't be so sure, young grasshopper.
http://www.honoluluzoo.org/images/komodo-tw.jpg

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by ShawnD
Don't be so sure, young grasshopper.
http://www.honoluluzoo.org/images/komodo-tw.jpg

Yeah, and here's a photo of Jesus http://www.serraschool.org/StudentWork/Projects02-03/7AnimalKingdom/run.jpg

 

[Jonathan]

LOL, I was expecting an actual painting of Jesus. (BTW, that would be funny to me because he is always depicted as white despite how that would make him stick out like a sore thumb in amongst the Middle Easterners, making it not too hard for the Pharisees to find him themselves, thereby negating Judas' role in the Bible. I know, I'm dull and think stupid stuff is funny.)

 

[FZ+]

They have been carefully studied and verified by reliable paleontologists and cannot be dismissed as frauds. Furthermore, there are places in Arizona and Rhodesia where dinosaur pictographs have been found drawn on cave or canyon walls by man"4

To my knowledge, this has been dismissed by all the experts that looked at it. No independent confirmations given.

In 600 BC Nebuchadnezzar had as his symbol the god Marduk on top of a fire-breathing dragon. When Suddam Hussein tore down the old Babylon to rebuild the city, he found carvings on the walls of lions and long necked, long tailed dragons!

This is stretching credulity a bit. The same people also claimed that winged horses existed, that you can wear helmets that make you invisible, certain lizards (or dinosaurs?) can turn you into stone, tribes of amazon warriors exist, the christian God is false. Funny how they gloss over this bits. In short, the myths of early man are many and varied. Select some, and you can "prove" anything.
Krakens are generally thought to be like giant, man eating, ship attacking squids.

The chances of getting close to a sea monster in a quiet moving sailing ship are pretty good, but today with the diesel engine mounted in a metal hulled ship, the creatures can hear the ship coming from miles away

But there are also passive sonar systems installed, such as hydrophones that are sensitive enough to detect Russian submarines that are designed for stealth. Early accounts also detail monsters which actively attacked vessels. This has not been found.

As the ship was sinking, it exploded under water, and a 60-foot sea monster came flying up out of the water.

Consider how they would have detected such a monster. If they used sonar or any such hydrophones, the explosion would have messed things up majorly. If the ship was exploding, he would easily be confusing it with additional spray or debris. Also, it seems very plausible that the captain was merely using a metaphor.

When he showed them a picture of a dinosaur they said, "Oh yes, that's Mokele-Mbembe! He lives out in the swamp.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/7270/mokele.html

The account misinforms on a number of details. Roy Mackal et al went to look for the "monster", which was first reported in the 1900s. The dinosaur was picked out as bearing the most resemblance out of a selection of creatures - and we don't know what that selection was. And no conclusive evidence was ever found, only eyewitness accounts from superstituous tribesmen.

Poor Arthur had bought into the lie of evolution!

Intriguing. Cue another misunderstanding of basic evolutionary theory.

In 1977, while fishing off the coast of New Zealand, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up in their net the dead, rotting, stinking corpse of a 4000 pound, 32 foot long dinosaur! It had a long neck and four big flippers and was identified as a plesiosaurus.6

A whale was caught off the coast of Nova Scotia that had in its stomach a baby plesiosaurus ten feet long.6

Notice the common factor. Rotting, stinking, half digested and more or less unrecognisable...

But our understanding of these events cannot be based on the mere speculations of people who are alive in the present.

Darwin is dead now. Does that help?

 

[Jonathan]

As to the carvings in the Grand Canyon(as I hear that is where they were specifically), I had not heard of them before I visited there, so I didn't get to look into it, but I bet that it is a bit of a strech to see a dinosaur in the carving, and is probably like seeing shapes in clouds.
That whole Nebachadnezzar thing is just stupid, if I can make up animals, so could he.
FZ+, the hydrophone thing you mention doesn't make sense, if I had a perfect hydrophone that could hear everything, it wouldn't matter because I would undoubtably have a noisy engine on board, since I'd be out at sea, and it would probably drown out the noise of deep sea monsters or something. Also, it is my opinion that the claims of actual attacks by monsters were made up for drama, that in fact they probably found the bodies of monsters washed ashore (or maybe they were sailing and saw the bodies adrift, whatever).
Unless I'm confused (it's been awhile since I've read this thread), that part about the 60 foot monster was in the account of the Uboat captain. He did not use hydrophones or sonar to see it, he was for whatever reason on the surface and alledgedly saw the monster. The loudness of the explosion doesn't effect his sight I assume. As to it being a metaphor, that didn't occur to me, though it seems weird to use a metaphor in the captain's log. Being that he is German, we don't really know what it says, because of translation errors and the possibility that it was never written at all, since I've never seen the documentation.
Yes, that monsndfl-msohdsn monster could just be in their traditions, not their swamp. I'll go to that website you gave in a second.
I no longer remember the comment about Arthur and evolution (I'll have to go back and reread it), but I feel I should mention that I have a very strong understanding of evolution (scientific family, sister is an anthropologist), but I don't like it. I don't like that it is presented as fact when it is still only a theory, and I know that at its core it is incapable of making predictions, so from my veiw that makes it a pretty worthless theory at that, also esp. given that many of it's postdictions are almost speculatory in nature.
Yes, if it is unrecognizable, it is as much dinosaur as blob of seaweed.
LOL, Darwin is dead! Oddly enough, I remember hearing somewhere that by the end of his life he no longer believed in evolution, is this true? I think that would be pretty damning, esp. if we knew the reason why he disliked it.

 

[Jonathan]

I just got back from that site, and you are right, that didn't occur to me, I have never heard what the other pictures were of. Given that they knew that the monster was, by nature of being called a monster, large, they need only have shown photographs of obvious things like bugs and song birds, and then a drawing of a dinosaur, and the natives would immeadiatly pick the dinosaur as being most similar amoung those shown.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
I know some of these are explainable but what about the pterodactyls at the bottom? It says two of the photographs are in some dinosaur book.

http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/evolutio.htm[/URL]

I know this thing won't work but you should check it out anyway.

This is all fake.

 

[einsteinian77]

what it says about dragons and how evolution is a hoax is fake, I know that, I am talking about the pictures.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
what it says about dragons and how evolution is a hoax is fake, I know that, I am talking about the pictures.

The pics are fakes too, or interpreted in the way they choose...the way you can see animals in the clouds. From any other angle, those pics probably look like something completely different.

 

[Jonathan]

Well thanks for clearing that up Zero, that is only what every other post in this thread said.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Well thanks for clearing that up Zero, that is only what every other post in this thread said.

I'm glad you liked it...why don't you have a seat and I can explain all sorts of obvious things to you that you don't understand, huh?

 

[Jonathan]

Good one.

 

[FZ+]

FZ+, the hydrophone thing you mention doesn't make sense, if I had a perfect hydrophone that could hear everything, it wouldn't matter because I would undoubtably have a noisy engine on board, since I'd be out at sea, and it would probably drown out the noise of deep sea monsters or something.

No, not like that. What they in fact have is a series of hydrophones, in a network covering the coast of the US, and some more important bases. They then have sophisticated filters to find anamolous readings - they frequently detect whales and so forth. And because of the superposition of sound waves, the detectors are very good at sorting one source from another.

He did not use hydrophones or sonar to see it, he was for whatever reason on the surface and alledgedly saw the monster. The loudness of the explosion doesn't effect his sight I assume

Have you seen one of those U-Boat films? They are pretty authentic. See the huge splash when a depth charge explodes? I assume that something like a ship exploding would be bigger. The results would certainly obscure his vision, especially if he was close.

I don't like that it is presented as fact when it is still only a theory, and I know that at its core it is incapable of making predictions, so from my veiw that makes it a pretty worthless theory at that, also esp. given that many of it's postdictions are almost speculatory in nature.

Well, the originals didn't make many predictions, true. But the theory has been tighted up greatly in recent years, we can indeed make some predictions - about the rate at which bacterial resistancies appear, for example. And each fossil we find can be seen as a prediction - eg. the existence of a bird/dinosaur hybrid was predicted by evolution, before two fossils were found confirming just that. And the prediction of biological heredity did hold out.

Oddly enough, I remember hearing somewhere that by the end of his life he no longer believed in evolution, is this true?

No. And generally good scientists don't go for arguments from authority. No one cares, for example, what Einstein later thought of QM. The work has gone way beyond Darwin, anyways.

 

[Jonathan]

1) Oh, I see, I misunderstood.
2) (above)
3) Well, yes, those types of predictions didn't occur to me as I wrote. I was thinking along bigger, more complex lines. As to the bird/dino thing, that really wasn't a prediction, it was one of a few subsets or versions of what may have happened, and it turned out that that one appears to be true. If they still hadn't found those fossils even today, I think just as many people would believe today. I think this because evolution is one of those theories that is almost impossible to disprove, unless one finds something blatantly wrong with it (they would have done that hundreds of years ago). But once a theory like evolution gets to it's age, it's hard to topple, and possibly for good reason.
4) Oh. But still, if he had, I would like to know the reason. Of course he was only a man, and one shouldn't just take his word for it, but if he changed his mind you'd think it was for a good reason.
And that example you gave of Einstein doesn't fit really well, because he didn't come up with QM. (Well, neither did Darwin come up with evolution, he stole the idea, but he did like it in the beginning (and apparently in the end too), but Einstein never liked QM.)

 

[FZ+]

And that example you gave of Einstein doesn't fit really well, because he didn't come up with QM

Well, I think he did. He wrote the 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect that established the photon theory of light, and turned Planck's fudging of the equation into a real theory. He only really became disillusioned when people like Heisenberg and Bohr came up with conclusions that apparently conflicted with his own determinist view of the world.

 

[Jonathan]

I disagee, he obviously didn't unerstand the flood gates he was opening. It was Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger's doing. Einstein layed the foundation. Kinda like: the guy who invented math didn't invent the computer, but there'd be no computers without him.

 

[einsteinian77]

Its sort of true, Planck published works practically containing the Einstein relationship several times way before Einstein's way.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Jonathan
(above)
3) Well, yes, those types of predictions didn't occur to me as I wrote. I was thinking along bigger, more complex lines. As to the bird/dino thing, that really wasn't a prediction, it was one of a few subsets or versions of what may have happened, and it turned out that that one appears to be true. If they still hadn't found those fossils even today, I think just as many people would believe today. I think this because evolution is one of those theories that is almost impossible to disprove, unless one finds something blatantly wrong with it (they would have done that hundreds of years ago). But once a theory like evolution gets to it's age, it's hard to topple, and possibly for good reason.

You are not clarifying the difference between the theory of 'origin of the species' and that of evolution. We can see and show evolution in the present day. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a classic example. It's mechanisms are quite well known and basically common sense - genetic mutation and natural selection. The use of unnatural selection (animal and plant breeding) has given us hundreds of species of dogs, dozens of plants (brocolli, califlower, lettuce, brussel sprouts, cabbage, celery, and many more) just from the precusor to cabbage, not to mention countless others. We know genetic mutations occur. We know that if a mutation gives the offspring a better chance at surviving until reproduction, then it will be more likely to remain in the gene pool.

It's odd that I find almost nobody having problems with evolution and the theory concerning origin of the species, with the exception of those with religious views which it contradicts. I think this says a lot more about those in disagreement than it does about problems with the theory. Theories with important flaws are always prey to those without some ulterior motive - why are they evidenced with respect to 'origin of the species'?

4) Oh. But still, if he had, I would like to know the reason. Of course he was only a man, and one shouldn't just take his word for it, but if he changed his mind you'd think it was for a good reason.

The 'recanting of Darwin' has been shown to have been incorrect. It has failed to die because of the believers trying to discredit his theory. Classic ad-hominem - if you can't directly attack the message, indirectly attack it by trying to discredit the messenger.

Ref: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp

 

[Jonathan]

First, you are right, I was not clear, I meant origin of species. One thing in particular that I don't like about origin of species from evolutionary processes though, is the everything goes type of thing. It is hard to explain what I mean, but it is something like this: mutation occurs, bug is born bright red, predators see this as a display of poisonousness, and it survives. Or, mutation occurs, bug is very dull colored, predators can't see it at all, it survives. There seems to me to be a distinct lack of direction in this example. As long as the mutation doesn't kill, maim, or sterilize the bug, it seems to me that the bug would have no problem surviving. So why are there so many distinct types of bugs that can't mate? If this sounds stupid and/or the answer is obvious, please be nice as it is 3:30 AM here and who knows how well I can think as compared to usual.
Second, I dislike being stereotyped as a religous fanatic. I don't attend chruch, how's that for antifanaticism?

 

[FZ+]

So why are there so many distinct types of bugs that can't mate?

This is then speciation.

Consider life as a river, carving a road through an environmental landscape. At first, it flows in a straight, single line. But each little bit of water in the river is different, and the ground they flow through is also different. There are little bumps here and there, corresponding in differences to the conditions that they are selected in. So, at some of these points, the river splits - some go one way, and some the other. As the two flow on, each encounters further terrain, that makes them drift even further apart. These two rivers, then, are now two recognisably different species, and they may be so far apart that they can no long meet up again.

As long as the mutation doesn't kill, maim, or sterilize the bug, it seems to me that the bug would have no problem surviving.

Because selection is not usually a boolean process. Usually, they get passed into the next generation, and then each characteristic varies in frequency according to their relative goodness in each situation. It takes some time.