Moontanman

I understand that is your assertion, if you would change that to it is your belief i would have no problem with it but an assertion needs to backed up by evidence, empirical evidence, do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

You are assuming that before the Carboniferous gas levels were the same as today, in fact CO2 was thought to be very high well before then but O2 was very low. As the CO2 was turned into oxygen and life forms the oxygen levels soared, this resulted in lush plant growth for the first part of that period then as CO2 levels crashed the climate turned cold, plant growth slowed. The extra Carbon was sequestered as coal and oil and limestone, limestone was probably a bigger sink for CO2 than coal or oil. The extremely high oxygen levels also fell due to fires that swept through the lush forests as the climate cooled and dried. Without the lush plant growth to replenish the oxygen the levels fell. I am sure it had some effect on overall air pressure but I can't find any references to that. Air pressure on the Earth has varied wildly as has it's gaseous content, before complex life and before the great oxygenation event it is thought that methane was a large part of the Earths atmosphere and quite possibly H2S as well.

Velociraptors were nothing like the animals in Jurassic park, kinda sad since the real deal was much more cool, like a deadly chicken! I see no reason to assume this creature couldn't climb but microraptor almost certainly could climb.

During the Carboniferous Period oxygen levels were as much as 40% higher than today and allowed insects to get quite large, Dragon Flies as big as eagles, CO2 levels were also quite high at that time as well. During the time of the dinosaurs CO2 was high as well and also resulted in lush plant growth and quite possibly larger animals but dinosaurs were able to get much bigger due to their physiology as well, even the sauropods had hollow bones and breathed similar to the way birds breath and this allowed them to get much larger than mammals ever have.

If I remember correctly I got the recipe from our history book...

I'm not so sure that smart was the right label but we managed to make a sizable quantity of gunpowder, enough to blow up several large stumps and a large rock out of a cliff face... I can't remember now where we got the potassium nitrate but sulfur turned out to be the hardest to find... I found a supply of sulfur seeping out of a large pile of fire bricks that had never been used, I have no idea why sulfur was seeping out of that pile of bricks... we were in the 6th grade...

If anyone thinks that information about bombs can be kept away from those who want to build a bomb I think you are closing the barn door after the horse is gone. When I was kid, almost 50 years ago we were building explosives out of various home supplies just for fun. Too little too late I am afraid...

The OP is trying to write a story that includes a being that can somehow spray fire like a mythical dragon, we are trying to help him come up with a reasonable way to allow his character to spray fire in his story...

The idea of a biological suit seems laughable at first blush but if you think about it biology isn't much more than complex machine and if we manage to get control of biology the same way we control technology biological machines are not that difficult to imagine.

No Photon Propeller, I have asked you for evidence of your assertions, nature is not evidence of anything but nature and the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive assertion. My belief or disbelief in anything is not relevant to the issue of evidence. If I said I believed there was a invisible dragon in my basement would that be enough of a reason to believe me? What if i said that invisible dragon was responsible for the creation of the universe would that make it more believable? Your incredulity is meaningless and the universe has no obligation to satisfy you and your assertion about cause and effect is so much horse feathers. Even if i allow that any effect has to have a cause why does that cause have to be god? Maybe some brobdingnagian creature someplace ingests dark matter and excretes universes and has no intelligence what so ever? Your assertions need to be supported by evidence and trying to insult my intelligence is laughable. Your assumption of some guilt is insulting and against the rules, if you want to trade insults I suggest you go someplace else there is no room for that here...

See the OP post above, if you want to debate what god is or if god is real I suggest you start your own thread, meantime making positive assertions does require evidence...

My logical self can see the statistics and draw a reasonable conclusion that overall we would all be safer if guns were non existent. My emotional self cannot make that leap, this seriously disturbs me. I don't see myself as a threat to society because I have a gun. In fact if i wanted to hurt someone I doubt lack of a gun would hinder me much. I don't see having a gun as a logical incentive to hurt anyone.

No I have asked for evidence, so far you have given none, in the face of no evidence the default position is not to believe...

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, your claim is extraordinary and so requires positive evidence, my position is the default position. You are making a positive assertion I am simply asking for evidence of your assertion so far all you have is belief, belief does not equal knowledge...

As I have said before assertions with no evidence can be dismissed without evidence... There is no reason to assert a God or creative force or architect. It's quite possible the laws of nature are completely random when a universe expands from what ever they expand from, you have no evidence that contradicts this... And again, your belief is not knowledge...

None the less on this forum to make a positive assertion requires evidence, even in the religion section. It is not a pulpit for you to assert your beliefs...

No the properties of nature require no creator, no master, they reflect nothing but natural processes, your belief in this is nothing but belief and belief is not knowledge... It is not self evident to me and I'm guessing few others on this site would support such meaningless assertions...

Claims with no evidence are easily dismissed without evidence, you have nothing but your belief, belief is not evidence of anything...

This is nothing but double talk, if you are going to make these assertions you will have to do better than that... Circular reasoning is not evidence of anything...

You keep making these assertions with no evidence other than your assertions, please back up what you are claiming with evidence...

I have some thoughts on that as well, but not the TV stuff but that is another thread... Complexity arises from chaos spontaneously, no architect is necessary or implied, evolution is a prime example of this... Created by what? Created how? What evidence do you have for this assertion?

How to fly on nothing...

It's interesting that the knowledge supposedly given to us directly from god is wrong...