Talk:Quetzalcoatlus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the Pterosaurs WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Pterosaur-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Contents 1 Wingspan of Senckenberg Museum model? 2 Extinct for 60 million years?? No one knows that. 3 Name 4 Etymology of Quetzalcoatlus northropi

[edit] Wingspan of Senckenberg Museum model?

Re the photo of the Senckenberg Museum model:

Does anybody know the wingspan of this model?? I'm wondering which guess the modellers went with. - 5 december 2005

According to their web site [1], the wingspan is 12 meters (40 feet). This was long considered a high-end estimate, but now that pterosaurs have been found with wingspans approaching 80 feet, I don't think it's so improbable. Dinoguy2 00:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

80 foot (24 m) wingspan? In other words a pterosaur eight times bigger than Quetzalcoatlus, if their proportions are similar. Sounds like utter BS to me.

Well, wait for the paper, I guess.Dinoguy2 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll be waiting a long time. John.Conway 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Something else should be considered regarding wingspan limits. The claim that creatures with such a large wingspan "violate fundamental structural limits imposed on biological fliers" was calculated using our current atmosphere. According to Biblical account, our atmosphere was completely different prior to the flood. This would not only account for much larger creatures but also longer life spans, faster healing, and generally a different world than what we observe today. On a side note, this could easily cause problems with dating methods we base on our currently observable atmosphere.

According to Biblical account, The Bible says this? I'm not trying to be combative, but I'm interested in religious scholarship and I doubt people in the 4th century knew what an "atmosphere" was, let alone that it changed due to the flood.Dinoguy2 22:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dinoguy2. Don't expect to find words like "atmosphere" or "dinosaur" in the Bible. The word atmosphere is a mixture of Greek and Latin, neither of which existed when Genesis was written. The Greek atmos(vapor) + the Latin sphaera(sphere) form the word atmosphere which means vapor which surrounds the earth. The Hebrew word used to describe the air around the earth in Genesis 2:6 is translated as mist. You may notice the description of the Arabic word used to confirm this meaning actually does contain the word atmosphere, and is even described as a defense or something that guards and strengthens. I don't want to read too much into that, but I found that description pretty interesting. As far as the change occurring with the flood, you need to look closely at the scriptures. The flood is not only caused by rain but is referred to as "the flood of waters" in Genesis 7:6. This becomes more clear in Genesis 7:11 where it is written that "...the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." If you read other scriptures that refer back to the flood you will find mention of the fountains of the deep. Something I don't think most people realize is that although it rained 40 days, the water rose and didn't begin receeding until after 150 days. Noah didn't even get to leave the ark for over a year. If you study the geneologies following the flood you will see the lifespan of man became shorter and shorter. The conclusion that makes logical sense to me is that the atmosphere that had previously protected and shielded life from the destructive force of the sun had changed greatly. I hope this helps Dinoguy2. Something to think about too, if people lived alot longer pre-flood, is it possible that on an individual basis they knew more about life than we do today :)

The conclusion that makes logical sense to me is that the atmosphere that had previously protected and shielded life from the destructive force of the sun had changed greatly. The thing is, the composition of the atmosphere at a given time in prehistory can be tested in several ways. The largest change was when oxygen levels *increased* sharply during the precabrian due to the advent of photosynthesis. (Of course ancient Jewish scholars would have been unaware of this, heh). I hadn't heard the bit about the connection between mist and atmosphere, etymologically, are there any (maybe less POV) cites that corroborate this?Dinoguy2 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dinoguy2, the "Precambrian" era is part of the evolutionary theory that exists only within that theory. The belief that everything in this world evolved from single-celled organisms, and that those single-celled organisms just somehow sprang to life from dead matter is exactly that, a belief. All the "proof" for the theory is inferred from defective or presumptive evidence (or in a number of cases fraud). Nowhere in our world do we see transition from one species to another, and nowhere is it even demonstrated through fossil evidence. As scientists have discovered DNA and discover no "simple" cell even exists, it continually becomes more apparent that macro-evolution is wrong. Irreducible complexity is something that does exist, is testable, provable, visible, and logical. Please see the micro-biology section on http://creationevolution.net/. We have all been indoctrinated with evolutionary theory and taught to see everything through the eyes of an evolutionist from a very early age. Please don't just go with the flow, look into this more deeply from all types of sources and I think you might be glad you did. I provided you with the Biblical account you asked for, including the original language, because you said you were interested in "religious scholarship". If you refer to what I shared from the Bible as a "bit" I am not sure any other Bible believers word is going to do much to satisfy you. I would however recommend Dr. Kent Hovind's DVD series on the subject. My wife was a biology major and I can't put into words how much she got out of watching them. I will gladly make you a copy of any or all 7 DVD's and send them to you if you would like? What were we talking about anyway?? Oh yeah, an explanation of how the flight of a creature with a 50+ foot wingspan is possible :)

I'm interested in Biblical scholarship just as I'm interested in scholarship relating to he Illiad or other mythological texts.Dinoguy2 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extinct for 60 million years?? No one knows that.

Overwhelming evidence and logic points to this giant being alive with men. Quetzalcoatlus is named after the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl and is a known pterodactyloid pterosaur. Explain how the Aztecs would have known what a supposedly extinct "dinosaur" looked like? Not only the Aztecs but also the Nazca's, Ica's, and many worldwide cultures carved what they saw in stone. First of all, "dinosaur" wasn't even a word until about 200 years ago. Anyone living prior to that generally called giant reptiles "dragons". I'm so sick of evolutionists controlling science by discarding every piece of evidence that disagree's with their unprovable "THEORY". All through mans existence people who saw giant creatures wrote about them and drew pictures of them but we are now expected to throw all the recorded firsthand evidence away and then filter all our thoughts and observations through Darwinian theory first. Evolutionists think "NOTHING IS TRUE IF IT DISAGREES WITH OUR THEORY." I have news...THAT IS WRONG. Evolutionists said the Coelacanth was 70 million years extinct and we now know they are still alive! Coelacanth is just one of 500 different species the evolutionists proclaimed as dead for millions of years that we now know are alive and well. Think about it... and don't let someone else think for you :) --(previous unsigned comment by User:Waxman22).

You've got it wrong: nothing is true unless there is physical evidence for its existence. We thought coelocanths were all dead. This was proved wrong thanks to physical evidence (i.e. a live coelocanth). Show me a skeleton of a dragon, a hippogriff, a sphinx or a minotaur and I might be more persuaded by your opinion. The Singing Badger 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatlus is named after the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl and is a known pterodactyloid pterosaur. Explain how the Aztecs would have known what a supposedly extinct "dinosaur" looked like? Are you joking? The people who discovered this species in the '70s named it after the Aztec god. The Aztecs themselves had no idea it existed.Dinoguy2 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point. Dinosaur is just the name a scientist gave to the creatures he dug up. I would say that what he dug up was proof that people didn't make up dragons, we still dig them up today. Saying a Coelacanth (or any other fossilized creature) "has been extinct for 70 million years" mislead the entire world. Why not say "some scientists believe" instead of stating something like that as if it were a fact? You assume alot in saying "The Aztecs themselves had no idea it existed." Were you there? Don't you think the Aztecs had brains? Have you really looked at the evidence? If someone from the past left a picture of something, scientists say "these people just made these creatures up", but what if we then dig up the remains of that creature they drew? Is that evidence enough for you? I have to disagree with people who would rather speculate about things than to listen to the accounts of eyewitnesses. Who is really making things up here...people who were there, or people who use their imaginations to explain things? :)--(previous unsigned comment by User:Waxman22).

Dragons are big four-legged reptiles with wings that breathe fire. No such animal has ever been found fossilized or alive. (If you know otherwise, correct me). Known dinosaurs do not look anything like dragons. If you have evidence that the Aztecs were familiar with animals like Quetzalcoatlus, please share it with us. If not, your argument is meaningless. Scientists do not 'believe' things. They use evidence to prove them. To disprove their arguments you have to find better evidence. In other words, you need to show us that Aztecs knew about pterosaurs, or an historical drawing of an animal that looks like a dinosaur. Please do so. The Singing Badger 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer back to the topic being discussed here. I think we are getting way off track. We all know of four legged reptiles and winged reptiles of all shapes and sizes and that if a man living prior to the word "dinosaur" or "reptile" or "lizard" saw one of these creatures he would call it something else. I do understand your points but you are not understanding mine. The topic is about the claim that Quetzalcoatlus is 60 million years extinct. Scientists do "BELIEVE" things and many times with no "evidence" to "prove" what the believe. Actually, many scientists ignore "evidence" that "disprove's" what they "BELIEVE". I think that as more and more evidence stacks up against the belief of evolution it will become clearer that this is another case where "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools". Artwork on pottery and stones clearly depicts stegosaurus, triceratops, and a couple others that are what we classify as dinosaurs, and there are writings of the conquistadores that travelled to areas where they found these types of things. There are tribal regions of the world where people still claim to see these creatures...and multiple people who claim to have seen what seem "prehistoric" creatures all over the world. I could dig up some links for you...but I have a feeling you will dismiss whatever I show you in order to hold onto your beliefs. (previous unsigned comment by User:Waxman22)

I think you should dig up the links. Show us the pottery. Shows us the tales of the conquistadors. But please remember that oral evidence is not as convincing as physical evidence, because human beings exaggerrate and make things up. You yourself admit this when you say that ancient people saw dinosaurs but called them dragons. According to all medieval drawings, dragons look like [2]. No known dinosaur looked anything like that. So the people who drew dragons in the middle ages must have exagerrated and distorted what they saw (if they saw anything). So how can we trust them? Scientists must give physical evidence for what they claim. But anyway, show us the links. The Singing Badger 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you see that evolution is written and oral only? Study dragons more if you only know of the one kind from one area in one time period, but really, I don't see the point. Once again, my original point is that when people throw out numbers like 60 million years they are absolutely making it up from their personal beliefs...which has been disproved time and time again to put it lightly. Those numbers come from a persons belief in evolution which is a BELIEF and nothing more. I don't think they should present their beliefs as fact when they truly aren't...and if anything have been proven to be untrue.

I'm sorry, but Radiocarbon dating has proved to be accurate, and is based on the simple principle of the radioactive decay of carbon atoms. It's scientific, and not based on "faith" at all. It proves the world is far older than 6,000 years, and so any "belief" that disagrees with that is in direct disagreement with scientific fact. Scientists don't "make things up" from their "personal beliefs". --Firsfron 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Waxman, we're still waiting for your evidence. Scientists do not simply 'believe', they have to justify anything they say with explanations based on firm evidence. There are reasons why scientists they use numbers like 60 million years: it's because they have evidence that proves it, not because they're simply pulling it out of a hat. Science is not simply written and oral: the words scientists use refer directly to objects in the physical world that others can assess for themselves. Anyway, Waxman, your words are empty until you've provided some better evidence of your own. The Singing Badger 12:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you interpret "evolution" as "science", and as a fact. They are two separate things, and it is not a fact. Please show evidence that proves something is 60 million years old. I started this thread stating no one can honestly say anything is 60 million years old, but you just keep sidetracking. My point in bringing up the topic is being proven by your own words each time you claim that evolution is some sort of scientific fact. Evolution is a THEORY and a BELIEF, not a fact. It has been proven wrong many many times over, logically, mathematically, and scientifically. The fact is, you are not an unbiased observer who takes an honest look. I think it's fair to say that a skeleton is not going to prove anything to you, any pictures drawn on pottery or rocks will be excused as fraud, any quote I share with you will be excused as a hoax or just a dumb person, any quote from peoples journals or writings from the past will be excused as made up or misconceived...as long as you cling to your BELIEF in evolution as the final authority on everything, you will never see the world correctly.

Carbon dating has proven to be extremely inaccurate. How about a living snail dating tens of thousands of years old? How about recently formed rocks dating tens of thousands of years old? If God created an adult man and that same day set him before a scientist, how old would that man be? How about God creating an adult earth and adult plants and animals(including dinosaurs)...how old would a modern scientists theoretical observation say these things are? Carbon in the atmosphere is not a constant, and actually, present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing in the short 56 year span it has been used. When I ask for evidence I am not asking for more theory...especially theories that are already untrustworthy. Scientists who promote their belief in evolution do not "justify" what they say with any "firm evidence". Faulty logic, faulty dating methods, fraudulent fossil evidence, and the assumption that we can discern truth through science is what macro-evolutionist beliefs rely on for justification.

Here is an article that I think everyone should read http://www.creationevolution.net/100%20scientists.htm and a visit to the site http://www.creationevolution.net/ might better explain some of the falsehoods evolutionists have used to support their theories. Another site that has some interesting information is http://drdino.com/articles.php

Waxman,

• There is a difference between a belief and a scientific theory. A theory is an hypothesis that has evidence to support it, and can be accepted as fact until convincingly proven otherwise. Most scientists do not believe creatonists to have proven their case convincingly. They say creationists are warped by their beliefs. Where does the circle end?
• Your first link doesn't work, sorry.
• Your second link right away sets up a straw man by saying that it's arguing against macro-evolution. You should look that up, and you'll find that it's a controversial idea and that most evolutionary theory is not actually based on it.
  • The second link offers ridiculous arguments against evolution. For example, it uses the hoaxing of archaeoraptor and Piltdown Man as evidence that scientists can wilfully mislead themselves [3]. Yet it ignores the fact that these hoaxes were exploded by evolutionist scientists, not by creationists. This is evidence that mainstream science is in fact capable of being self-critical, and of weeding out the deception from the truth. If you want to destroy evolutionary science, prove that every other fossil is a fake, don't single out the isolated examples of fraud.
• The third website offers pathetic articles like this one, which makes outrageous claims without any citations or evidence, and then essentially says, 'there must have been a wordwide flood because it says so in the Bible'. Is this really what you mean by objective, unbiased, fact-based thought? You're very naive.
• Anyone can throw websites out, but you have to actually think critically about their arguments. Why don't you try actually reading the writing of some evolutionists? You'll find that the 'information' in these websites has been rebutted perfectly well for decades. This is a good place to start. The Singing Badger 12:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting how you continue to refuse to provide any evidence for your own beliefs, which is actually what this thread is about. Just as I stated you would, when provided with evidence and theories from any source other than your own, you call it a "straw man", "pathetic", "rediculous", "outrageous", and then call me "naive" and go as far as ridiculing belief in the Bible. I do believe the Bible is the word of God, and I have read the writings of evolutionists which in my opinion logically disprove themselves consistantly. I never said anything about fossils, but on that point I believe most fossils are proof of the flood you so openly excuse as "naive". I hope you are aware that the flood is documented in the history of almost every culture. A flood as described in the Bible explains our current population and helps explain fossils and erosion. I don't think that showing you the cases of fraud that have been used to promote evolution is wrong on my part. Those things were believed for many years and were used to persuade people to believe evolution. I think it shows us that we should be more critical and careful about just simply believing someone because they have a title before their name, or because they claim that they have proved something. Now in defense of my statement earlier on about people calling dinosaurs dragons, or dinosaur bones "dragon bones", here is a source you won't argue with (or will you?) regarding my statement about what people used to call dinosaurs http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinofr.html I want to point out that I don't agree with much on that page, but it clearly states that men used to call dinosaurs dragons. If you will only listen to other evolutionists I can dig up quotes from evolutionists who disprove themselves logically...but it seems that you may never accept anything that disagrees with your beliefs.

I'm not criticizing the ideas in the websites, I'm criticizing the way they're written. They have a low standard of evidence. I used the term 'straw man' not as a random insult, but because the website in question is misleading the reader by describing evolutionary science as something it isn't. I used the term 'pathetic' not because the ideas were inherently wrong, but because the author made no attempt at justifying his statements; he claims that fossil evidence can be explained as the result of a recent flood, but offers no reasons or explanations for why he is right and the thousands of paleontologists who consider fossils to be millions of years old are wrong. He just says it - and then expects the reader to trust him. Why should they?

If you take half an hour to sit down and compare this article which I sneered at with this one which I reccommended, you'll see they have totally different standards of evidence. One makes claims that are not substantiated. The other explains where all its information comes from, explains the opposite point of view, explains why it's wrong in detail. That's real scientific writing. Maybe you disagree with some of its conclusions: but to contest them you have to explain specifically which of its ideas are clearly wrong. Can you do that?

By the way, I'm perfectly aware that fossils were called 'dragon bones' in the past. But when people began reconstructing the skeletons, they found that the animals did not look like dragons, they were something different. That's the point. The Singing Badger 16:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Kent Hovind at http://drdino.com tours the U.S. constantly and debates at universities anywhere he can find someone who is willing to debate. He doesn't simply expect people to believe the claims on his website and he always provides plenty of documentation each time he presents his case. I think the drdino website is aimed at providing basic information to people of any age group and any level of education, not just to those who study science. I did read the page you refer to and other sites explaining various radio-dating methods, and I actually feel even more strongly that the logic behind these methods leans on certain assumptions. No one knows the original state of a rock or under what conditions a rock you find was originally created. You don't know if a rock may have been created under water, in air, in space, or in an atmosphere we don't know about. No one truly knows what the atmosphere was like even five thousand years ago, and life is not a neat linear thing. Where do the original "primordial" elements like Pb-204 come from? Where do any elements truly come from and when and in what state were they created? How did non-living matter spring to life? I'm not asking you to answer these questions, I am just trying to demonstrate that science can't answer everything. You can always theorize, but I don't think it is wise to rest your soul on theory. Science did not create this world. Science is just as flawed and limited as we are as human beings.

Well, there we start getting into philosophy and that makes my head hurt. How can humans ultimately know anything? For all we know, we're in the the matrix. Maybe you just have to find the thing that gives the most certainty to you, and whether that's science or the Bible I guess we're all dust in the end, like the pterosaurs... Anyway, you and I are just going around in circles here, but thank you for an interesting conversation and maybe it'll all make sense one day... ;) The Singing Badger 01:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the conversation and the links :)

[edit] Name

On the question of the naming raised some time ago- which someone used as evidence for the Quetzalcoatlus being alive along with the Aztecs- did it ever occur to anyone that the person who discovered it named it after the Quetzalcoatl, rather than the other way around? --Ragestorm 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that was a kinda flawed question, Quetzalcoatl is a feathered-snake god, not a leathery membraned-wing beaked-reptile god. Feathered snakes might very well have existed, and feathered reptiles almost certainly did/do, but the pterosaur was just given a kitschy name based on mythology. Nobody argues that Titanosaurus was the Titans in Greek mythology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Just to nitpick, I think it's highly unlikely that feathered snakes existed... feathers are a pretty complex structure that almost certainly evolved only once. Not to say there couldn't be snakes with some kind of feather-like "snake-fuzz" akin to ptero-fuzz or something ;) Dinoguy2 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of Quetzalcoatlus northropi

Why was Quetzalcoatlus northropi named after John Knudsen "Jack" Northrop?

My guess is that the namers of Qn were paying homage to Northrop's aircraft designs, since Qn itself was the size of a small aircraft, and so it was a sort of biological precursor to them. A round about way of using a name that would mean "plane-like".Dinoguy2 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)