Hi. In case anyone is interested, I've posted a bunch of images comparing dinosaurs with ancient depictions of dragons from cultures around the world. Just click on the photos button. They should be there (make sure you have 'Latest' view option selected). I'd appreciate any feedback to know what you think.

Views: 248

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm not seeing the images. ONLY ONE.

This yEC disagrees claims about dragons are related to actual contact with dinos. YEC folks get this wrong. first there was a heaping lot of creatures after the flood that would also look like dragons. They went extinct a few centuries after the earth was filled after the flood.

there is no reason to ignore them but instead imagine dinos for the few trivial cases of folks making images of things.

The historic christian idea was that the dragom was a corrupted memory of a evil talking leggy serpent. The real serpent turned to walking on its belly.

Not dinos. sorry folks. 

its a little dumb too.

Did you manage to find the images? I think you only saw the one I attached with my message. That's just a sampling of the 50+ comparisons I've posted. Click on the 'PHOTOS' button (between blog & archive) at the top of the page. Once there, scroll down to the All Photos section. Make sure you set the viewing option (on the right side)to "Latest". They should be there. Take a close, unbiased, look at those & tell me what you think.

Ah, I see! The images are in the Creation Conversations MENU BAR, under Photos.



Bruce Jewell said:

Did you manage to find the images? I think you only saw the one I attached with my message. That's just a sampling of the 50+ comparisons I've posted. Click on the 'PHOTOS' button (between blog & archive) at the top of the page. Once there, scroll down to the All Photos section. Make sure you set the viewing option (on the right side)to "Latest". They should be there. Take a close, unbiased, look at those & tell me what you think.
my bias is based on knowledge of creatures that are shown in the fossil record.
There wewre so many weird "mammal' types that it would never be said man drew post flood images of dinos.
Now many yEC don't see the k-t line as the flood line. i do. this changes things.
Its very unlikely, UNCLEAN, creatures did well in the decades after the flood. the dinos were toast. Possibly some are the mammals found in the fossil record or with us today.
dragons are all fables or corrupted memories of classic stories of the unique leggy talking snake.
In the seas creatures may of survived but not on land. NAW.

Just returned from 5 weeks in the land of the Dragon, in Asia. Saw HUNDREDS of examples of composite memories - statues of lions with scales, wings, hoofs, horns - and so on, combining features of various animals. And clearly, this is a recollection of an actual animal, since these dragon images are side by side with known animals. Many of the dragon images are indeed leggy serpents, others are most certainly not, but more akin to stegosaurus, or T-rex, and others.

I'm sure Robert has his reasons for not accepting the idea that many dragon representations are composite recollections of actual creatures.

But so many clearly have features that we now recognize as characteristic of known dinosaurs.

What I find unfortunate, is that so few creationists (young earth or otherwise) don't recognize the untapped potential of clues that the old depictions of dragons could give, concerning how dinosaurs actually looked & behaved. Especially the dragon paintings from the renaissance period. People forget that one of the main goals of that movement, was to capture life as realistically as possible. When we can actually match up specific kinds of dinosaurs with some of these dragons, why not consider them as reasonably accurate as any other animals shown in these paintings (such as the horses in St. George & the dragon scenes)? I know it sounds a bit naive and idealistic, but no more than when evolutionists make dienonychus look like a flightless road runner (despite the fact they've never found one with feather imprints).



Jim Brenneman said:

Just returned from 5 weeks in the land of the Dragon, in Asia. Saw HUNDREDS of examples of composite memories - statues of lions with scales, wings, hoofs, horns - and so on, combining features of various animals. And clearly, this is a recollection of an actual animal, since these dragon images are side by side with known animals. Many of the dragon images are indeed leggy serpents, others are most certainly not, but more akin to stegosaurus, or T-rex, and others.

I'm sure Robert has his reasons for not accepting the idea that many dragon representations are composite recollections of actual creatures.

But so many clearly have features that we now recognize as characteristic of known dinosaurs.

My reasons are that its unlikely dinos lasted into human cultures. also that there are no dinos. They are just kinds of creatures.

The biggest point is that the fossil record is full of mammal creatures that easily should be rtemembered and are not AND these images easily would be about them if indeed a memory of something.

Naw. Not dinos.



Bruce Jewell said:

What I find unfortunate, is that so few creationists (young earth or otherwise) don't recognize the untapped potential of clues that the old depictions of dragons could give, concerning how dinosaurs actually looked & behaved. Especially the dragon paintings from the renaissance period. People forget that one of the main goals of that movement, was to capture life as realistically as possible. When we can actually match up specific kinds of dinosaurs with some of these dragons, why not consider them as reasonably accurate as any other animals shown in these paintings (such as the horses in St. George & the dragon scenes)? I know it sounds a bit naive and idealistic, but no more than when evolutionists make dienonychus look like a flightless road runner (despite the fact they've never found one with feather imprints).
The italian age there had nobody who ever saw a dragon or dino.
Its just from medieval storys.
I don't agree there are dinos as a group. Just kinds of creatures.
There were so many other, now extinct , creatures that dinos would be last on the list that would be remembered.
First, let me respectfully ask: how can you KNOW what kinds of animals people did, or did not see, 500 years ago in Italy?
As for dinos being the least remembered, why are there so many dragon legends and depictions found in so many cultures all over the world? And is it just a crazy coincidence that their descriptions an likenesses happen to line up with the distinguishing features of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, etc?
I do agree with you, that dinosaur classification is probably over-generalized (I have a hard time believing pterosaurs were true reptiles).



Bruce Jewell said:

First, let me respectfully ask: how can you KNOW what kinds of animals people did, or did not see, 500 years ago in Italy?
As for dinos being the least remembered, why are there so many dragon legends and depictions found in so many cultures all over the world? And is it just a crazy coincidence that their descriptions an likenesses happen to line up with the distinguishing features of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, etc?
I do agree with you, that dinosaur classification is probably over-generalized (I have a hard time believing pterosaurs were true reptiles).
Its easily understood Italians never saw dragons in italy in those days. YES I am sure.
The historic interpretation in Christian circles for dragon stories being everywhere was they were a corrupted memory of Satan speaking through the snake. In fact the dragon might have legs. So this memory of this beast and its always special and not just a bigger beast is from the campfires for the first hundreds of years before the flood.
Its not from dinos. In fact dinos were not reptile like anyways.
Finally there were so many kinds of creatures called mammals that once walked the earth but now are extinct. 
Sorry. Dragons equals dinos is a wrong trail.

Sorry Robert, this is Bruce's Thread. His premise is that Dragons all over the world are often, or mainly recollections of ancient reports of dinosaur sightings.

Yes, your point that they are recollections of that "old serpent the devil" is also CORRECT. But to limit the "dragon concept" only to that idea is actually contrary to Scripture.

Scripture uses the word dragon to refer to the memory of the devil (Rev. 12:9), but even here it is a particular dragon - "The Great Dragon." Elsewhere the Bible uses the word dragon to refer to creatures that inhabit specific locations - indicating that is not just referring to the "Old Serpent."

Likewise, the word "Serpent" is often a reference to the Evil One, the Devil, but not every serpent depicted in art, mythology, and legend is necessarily the "devil." So it is with dragons also. The same could be said about the LION - it represents the devil, but not always. And we see many links between the devil and the Fish (Dagon), the Bull (in Egypt), the Goat, bats and frogs and toads, and even spiders and flies. BUT THESE ARE NOT ALWAYS INDICATIVE OF THE DEVIL. In each case they are real creatures, know animals that ALL ARE CREATED BY GOD. Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:4). This declaration of Scripture includes DRAGONS.

From a natural perspective - we have the Chinese Zodiac - with TWELVE ANIMALS -

  1. rat
  2. horse
  3. tiger
  4. rabbit
  5. ox
  6. snake
  7. goat
  8. monkey
  9. rooster
  10. pig
  11. dog
  12. DRAGON

All of these are real and natural animals, created by God for His good purposes.

All over the world, there are depictions of actual dinosaurs. AND there are also depictions of dragons in the same monuments. BUT THERE IS unquestionable a much wider distribution of fantastic "combination" or composite representations that combine features of various dinosaurs into what appears to be a mythological creature that never actually existed. BUT WHEN THE "PARTS" are examined, it is clear that these are features seen in various types of dinosaurs.

It is not incorrect then for us to see a link between the dinosaurs and dragons. Dinosaur is a recently developed term (coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1841), but dragon has been in use for thousands of years, and it is found in the Bible, from the Greek and Hebrew words:

  • Tannim (e.g. Gen. 1:21; Jer. 51:37; Ps. 148:7)
  • Drakon (e.g. Ps. 74:13-14; 91:13; Rev. 12:9)
  • Leviathan (equated with the Greek Drakon, and also with the Tannim)

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service