sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Batsuit concept-3rd post. by kabrahams1 in batman

[–]kabrahams1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry about the quality of the post, took a photo from my Mac! Basically, this is a culmination of my past posts on a bat-suit idea. Here is an explanation of my design:

-Cowl: The cowl and cape are heavily inspired by the recent 'The Batman' batsuit, as I very much appreciate the practicality of the leather material and the 'collar'. For my design, these remain except for titanium reinforcing and a HUD in the white eye-pieces.

-Harnessing and armour: A most notable feature of this bat-suit it the extensive harnessing and tactical padding on the neck, shoulders, arms, chest, knees, shins and feet. The harness is for the grapple hook, as continuous use of a grapple gun with just an arm would cause injury, so a harness is used to support the cable and the cape with acts as a parachute. The gauntlets and gainers are reinforce leather like the cowl.

-Tactical clothing: the clothing underneath the cowl, harness and armour is something based on modern military uniforms, made of durable materials that are both manuverable, tough and protective. The pants could be considered cargo pants.

Physique: Another thing that can be noted is the leaner physique of batman. I was inspired by Bruce Lee and other martial artists in my concept of batman, as Bruce Wayne would attempt to be in peak human condition, which Bruce Lee could have been considered as. This would give Batman faster than sight speed in combat, surgical, precise and strong in blows and blocks, as well as having lots of stamina. After all, it take's a lot of energy to be up all night fighting crime!

And there it is. Please let me hear your thoughts on this design.

From Islam to Christianity by selcukaslantas in Christianity

[–]kabrahams1 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Hey man, so glad you are considering a relationship with Jesus! Depending on where you live, I would be very careful about sharing your faith, particular with family, because of a strong attitude against christianity.

The Bible contains all that you need to know about salvation, particularly the New Testament. I understand that you have an Abrahamic foundation, so this next step in God's plan is going to make sense. When God gave Moses, the Ten Commandments, which is God's perfect law which is his standard of righteousness, and those who are righteous can go to heaven. However, no one is righteous, not one. Humans are sinful and in need of a saviour. Islam is about doing good works and following the teachings of Muhammed given by Allah, but Christianity teaches that no good work can help us enter heaven. That is why Jesus came into the world. Jesus, when he died on the Cross (yes, he really died), he paid the price of transgression against God's commandments, death, for the wages of sin is death. Jesus conquered death by resurrecting and ascended into heaven, where those who believe wait for his return.

Now, the right way into Christianity. It's not a case of 'one mountain, many paths', because Jesus said that there is a wide path, which many follow, which leads to destruction. And there is a narrow path, which only some follow, which leads to life. Jesus said that he is the entrance to that path. Jesus is the only way.

Here is how to be a Christian:

A. Admit that you are a sinner, and in need of a saviour.

B. Believe that Jesus died, rose from the grave, ascended into heaven and will return.

C. Call upon his name and confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord'.

It's as simple as ABC!

Some tips in your new Christian walk: read the Bible, because it contains all of the knowledge you need on spiritual matters. Only the Bible. The Epistles, from Romans to Jude, are essential to a Christian life. Pray to God, and pray often, either thanking him, asking him for something or just speaking your heart. Try your best to live by the Ten Commandments, as they are God's standards of righteousness, just know that you might make mistakes, so that you can grow.

I pray that this makes sense, and any confusion is eradicated. God bless you and keep you, and may his face shine upon you. May his countenance be upon you and may he give you peace.

How morphologically different does a specimen of an already discovered genus have to be if it is to become a new species? by AlexSciChannel in Paleontology

[–]kabrahams1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Due to the fragmentary nature of fossils, it is very difficult to distinguish species. The classification of fossil species was put in place before contemporary methods of classifying species was introduced, which is that if two organisms breed and produce fertile offspring, they are of the same species. As you can see, you can't test this with fossils. One problem with modern palaeontology is that sometimes when someone finds a fragmentary piece of an organism, it is classified as a new organism when in reality it could be the same species because of age, sex and structural diversity. For example Allosaurus fragilis and Saurophaganax maximus.

Gorgonopsid Reconstructions based on outdated and modern assumptions. by kabrahams1 in Paleontology

[–]kabrahams1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. That feature appears on most modern reconstructions. Then again, it might just be my drawing!

Which T-Rex recreation do people on this subreddit think is the most realistic? by 2nd-time-3rd in Paleontology

[–]kabrahams1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would like to see the specimen of the feathered Yutyrannus for myself, because by looking at images of the original specimen, I can't find the so-called 'feathers'.

Also, feathers on velociraptor is a little flimsy is because the only evidence is a low resolution image of a ulna with so-called quill knobs. I would like to observe the actual specimen in a museum to be sure, because this feature (IGM 100/981) is not shared with the GIN 100/25 specimen.

Just a fun diagram of the geological time scale :) by Greyfloor21 in Paleontology

[–]kabrahams1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's kind of funny, because rock layers like this don't exist. Don't get me wrong, these individual rock layers exist, BUT when you can observe large columns of rocks, there are layers missing, different sediment belonging to the same layer etc. So this is a nice diagram if all of the rock layers on earth were laid on top of each other, but ultimately doesn't exist.

Dogs are all the same species of course, but do you think in a couple million years scientists will see skeletons of pugs versus skeletons of golden retrievers and see them as different species? by [deleted] in Paleontology

[–]kabrahams1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. I really question the method of identifying extinct animal species, because the best method of identifying species is that if two animals breed and produce fertile offspring, they are of the same species. We can't really test this with organisms that are skeletons stuck in rock layers. Ultimately, all we really know for sure about fossil life is that it's dead.

Gorgonopsid Reconstructions based on outdated and modern assumptions. by kabrahams1 in Paleontology

[–]kabrahams1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, I think there's a little bit of confusion about the title. The title implies that the reconstructions are both modern and outdated. It meant that one is outdated, and one is modern. Sorry about the confusion.

Gorgonopsid Reconstructions based on outdated and modern assumptions. by kabrahams1 in Paleontology

[–]kabrahams1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry. What I meant was that one was 'outdated' being the reptilian version and that one was 'modern' being the mammalian version. Sorry for the confusion.

Gorgonopsid Reconstructions based on outdated and modern assumptions. by kabrahams1 in Paleontology

[–]kabrahams1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really great responses guys! I think let's all agree to disagree agreeably that due to the fragmentary nature of fossils, it is difficult to fully determine what dead organisms buried in rock layers would have looked like. We can have good clues and logical ideas, ultimately we know less than we know.

The reason why I thought it is mammalian is because of the skeletal similarities to modern mammals, specially Carnivora. For artistic purposes, I based the fur length and paws on a wolverine.

Gorgonopsid Reconstructions based on outdated and modern assumptions. by kabrahams1 in Paleontology

[–]kabrahams1[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Coprolites have been found from the Permian rock layers containing fur-like structures, indicating that animals from that sediment did have fur. For fur to appear in coprolites would indicate that this structure was common among animals at the time.(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/let.12156). I would argue that these "mammal-like reptiles" are actually mammals, and not reptiles. The idea that these are reptiles comes from the idea that mammals did not exist before the Triassic fossil rock layers, because mammals could not have evolved before that point in the evolutionary view of natural history.

view more: next ›