Actually if you had read all of those experts quoted on the Bibleorigins website, they made the direct parallels. I suspect all of them have received more acclaim in the field than you have.

this is your biggest mistake, "I said Jones believed that dragon legends were universally believed in by early man. And he cites evidence from all over the world to prove this" ---because he proposes ways in which these fearful images may be merged in artistic or cultural expression to create the dragon image and, perhaps, other kinds of hybrid monster.
and this information is readily available for everyone, it's a trusted source, WIKIPEDIA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Instinct_for_Dragons... I dare you say WIKIPEDIA is wrong. "Dragon image" is not "dragon legend" philosophically and grammatically

this is your second mistake "The quesiton is, was it simply because man melded the animals they feared the most into a fantasy creature, or, according to their own accounts, did they really interact with these creatures? " ---because as far as everyone could trace your post on dragons, every fantasy creature, (fantasy as what would Webster's dictionary would define it) even biblical figures as the same fantasy creature, making it universal, disregarding details that would differ one from the other, as a DRAGON. they are all dragons to you. the mistake here is your deduction and not the quote itself.

this is your 3rd mistake. "Again, it goes back to whether there is any truth in mankings religious beliefs. If there is, dragons are obviously part of that truth."-- again you deducted something as one and the same, this time you deducted religion. Iim sure you meant to spell mankind and not mankings, mankind is a word that universities "man". though undiversified you deducted the fact that "man" as universal as he is in this world does not have a universal religion. religion is not even universal (let's not debate on that) but belief is. the dimpliest fact that you believe you are breathing or even the most mundane would prove that belief is universal

your fourth mistake. "If you believe in nothing, then changes are you are not going to believe in dragons, no matter that once virtually the whole world did." ---I think you meant to type "chances" rather than "changes" otherwise it wouldn't make sense at all but this is not my point. Belief is universal, logical or illogical, there is no "one" who believes in "nothing". "believing in nothing" is a belief itself already

your fifth mistake. "If you believe in nothing, then changes are you are not going to believe in dragons, no matter that once virtually the whole world did." "no matter that once virtually the whole world did" --is again deducting that the world once believed DRAGONS which the second paragraph totally disagree with. again a lack of coherence. your second paragraph clearly mentions "fantasy creature" and not dragons. your second paragraph says "man melded the animals they feared the most into a fantasy creature". you cited this if I'm right. dare you to debate your own citation?

Ok, don’t take my word for it. those who think that dragon-like is the same as dragon pls comment saying yes, while those who see the difference pls say "eureka".
And then let’s check that grammatically. dragon-like and dragon?. the noun "dragon" modifies the word "like". "Dragon" alone is a noun but "dragon-like" simply put acts as an adjective, again simply put.
Philosophically-dragon like and dragon?. in likeness is saying that it is compared to something sharing similar traits with but not the same thing. why say gold-like if you can say gold. this is so basic....maybe you just forgotten your Philosophy 101, did you??? a senior collegian taking up units/ who took up units in philosophy would simply pick this out...

chronic misspell + chronic grammatical errors + chronic improper citations + chronic lack of supporting documents + chronic improper claims + none coherence=( ? ) I’m getting an impression here (and id keep this to my self due to respect though little for you DC)

'lil gremlin' Posted

is that your level?

perhaps in america they teach you later the dangers in making direct parallels in such cases.

with



D.C? lil gremlin meant "the dangers in making direct parallels"., i dont understand as to why you say " I suspect all of them have received more acclaim in the field than you have.".
D.C. do you even understand "the dangers in making direct parallels"??? ok thats it, you never took philosophy 101 did ya?

and

"High school freshman Comparitive Religion"... oh please dont even get into that D.C....wait maybe that explains it High school- freshman... but pls do no body quote me on this! i never claimed anything on this paragraph.

An Instinct for Dragons, courtesy of Google

Also, the Wikipedia article is here.

Nowhere in this book does David E. Jones cite any evidence of dragons actually existing.

From the Wikipedia article:


Here is the link to Paul Jordan-Smith's article.
I'll save you some trouble and post some of Jordan-Smith's arguments against Jones:


Notice the bold. These sound suspiciously similar to your arguments, especially the final bold.

I would like to adress an issue I have noticed. Draconic Chronicler constantly says that he is tired of repeating his sources and that he has offered them up many times in his past posts. He says we should search through his past posts to find these sources. But DC, you have posted over 3000 times! Your posts list stretchs on incredibly long, and scouring through each one is ridiculous! It seems somewhat lazy to ask that of people.

DC - after torturing myself by going through all of your archived posts I have only two words to offer regarding your book:

Graphic novel.

It's the Strieber thing to do.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html

They do not draw direct parallels between Yahweh and enki....it is more complex than that.



perhaps you would like to read the website a little closer.

This is your source....it does not support a direct parallel as you claim.

from the same page as referenced above...





That's just two examples that further illustrate that these 'experts' do not support your claim.

The site owner doesn't make the direct parallel. I was referring to the scholars he quotes. Several see a direct connection between the Adapa Eden story and the Genesis Eden story. What thinking person could not?

After 500 plus pages already written, and numerous unique illustrations of "Biblical Dragons", not on your life. But there is an artist interested to do this. I frankly hope there will be interest in a movie.

I will say it once again. I NEVER said Jones believed dragons actually existed.

But it is nice to see that Jordan Smith does find the same faults in Jone's Premise that I do, such as the beneificient dragons, and the fact that people believe in reptilian dragons in places where reptiles never occured. I must send him a copy of my book! He shuld find it quit interesting.

I'm sure everyone is very impressed you can find my spelling errors. That's your 'real-life' job, isn't it?

I write my posts very quickly and don't bother to spell or grammar check. I am far too busy to worry about being 'graded' by a middle school teacher. I have little doubt I have written more published works than any of my detractors here. I do use spell and grammar checks before publishing anything more than replies in a cyrptozoology forum. I care little if you hold little respect for me. You have amply demonstrated by the Jones accusations, and the childish pettiness you demonstrate now, that I should not have any respect for you.

The reason I am still here is because once in a while, something significant comes from these discussions that will make the book better. It will be far better now due to the wait, and new information obtained since. Obviously, you have offered very little, save for correcting my spelling, but the laptop I use for my professional writing accomplishes this perfectly fine.

the bible origins site also says this ...

Professor Cohn noted that some scholars suspected that Ugaritic Yaw might be the prototype for Yahweh:

"It is becoming ever more difficult to say with any confidence when, where and how the Israelites first came to know the god Yahweh. It may be that, as Exodus says, he was originally a Midianite god, introduced into the land of Canaan by immigrants from Egypt; or he may have started as a minor member of the Canaanite pantheon...Originally El was the supreme god for Israelites as he had always been for Canaanites. Even if one discounts the pronouncement of El in the Baal cycle,'The name of my son is Yaw'- the import of which is still being debated- one cannot ignore a passage in the Bible which shows Yahweh as subordinate to El. Deuteronomy 32:8 tells how when El Elyon, i.e., El the Most High, parcelled out the nations between his sons, Yahweh received Israel as his portion." (pp.131-132. "Yahweh and the Jerusalem Monarchy." Norman Cohn. Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come, The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith. New Haven and London. Yale University Press. 1993)

"For two opposing views see John Gray, 'The god Yaw in the Religion of Canaan,' in Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicacgo. Vol. 12. 1953. pp. 278-283 and Garbini, op. cit., pp. 57-58. Gray cites the scholars who originally identified Yaw with Yahweh but rejects the identification, Garbini reaffirms it. Redford op.cit., p. 272, holds Yahweh was first worshipped by proto-Israelites in Edom." (p.246, note 5, to p. 132. Norman Cohn. 1993)



An image of the Phoenician/Canaanite sea-god Yaw or Yeuo exists on a coin from Gaza made in the Persian period of Greek craftsmanship, Langdon has argued that this is an image of the Hebrew God, Yahweh. Please click HERE for the image, then scroll down to the bottom of the page for the coin.
I note that Gaza was a port city like Byblos which may have been under the influence of Phoenician seamen and traders and thus possessing a temple to this god. Phoenician/Canaanite myths at 13th century B.C. sea port of Ugarit state that Yaw was a god of the Sea and some Phoenician kings at Byblos bore Yahweh appearing names, like for instance Yehaw-melek "Yahweh is king" of the 5th century B.C. I understand that The Hebrew Yaw or Yahweh, is, in part, an aspect of the Phoenician god of the Sea, Yaw Yehaw Yeou.


This is Yaw.

its nnot yahweh!!! you have no proof honestly nothing but your word when i even gave you scripture.

almost everyone has little respect for you....did i say that? you are writing a book on? just history of non existing dragons? or how you think the pope owned one

Maybe you should check my old posts to see that you already told me to do this and I already searched... And the ONLY other source I could find which even suggests Yahweh to be a dragon is your own. But unlike you, I go and look again... And repost the damned link.

I haven't read your list. Please post it or a link to it.

Although since most sources say that he was a man, I do think it's ludicrous to suggest he is not.

You think that because 1 our of millions of sources say one think you find attractive to believe, it must be true? Because a squid has a beak - it's evidence that it must be a bird? Completely ignoring all the other features, sources, evidence that proves it something else. Until you provide me with detailed sources I, nor anyone else, is going to take your waffle seriously.

exactly and dc wont even reply to this whatch

DC there must of been some defining event in your life when your belief became absoulute, please tell us about it.
Also along with this there must of been documentary evidence so please provide a link so that we all can make our own determinations

This is from the classic work on the Serpent as Divinity. It shows how wrong you are and how the Christians simply changed the idea of the serpent in the Bible from good to bad.. This source also confirms the reptilian nature of the highest heavenly creatures, the Seraphim.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/5789/serpent.htm

In Genesis the serpent is not only sentient of God's prohibition against partaking from the Tree of Knowledge; it knows why God will enforce that command; it knows the gift of the Tree of Knowledge, as if it possessed that gift.

The deific aspect of the serpent is further underscored by the punishment imposed upon it by God: "upon thy belly shalt thou go……..". Does this mean that before punishment the serpent had legs or even wings?

We next meet the serpent in Exodus 4:3,4 and Exodus 7: 10-12. In these

passages the snake, presumably the Egyptian asp, is connected to a rod. Aaron's rod. When Moses doubts that he is really hearing the voice of Yahweh, he is asked what he is holding in his hand and when he replies that he is holding a rod, he is

commanded to throw the rod down on the ground. When he does this, the rod becomes a serpent [ Exodus 7:1-16]. When he picks it up it becomes a rod again.

Page 14

This association between serpent and rod is a very ancient one. Later when Aaron throws his rod down before Pharaoh, it becomes a snakes. Pharaoh recognizes this magical association, as do the Egyptian priests, who also change their rods into serpents. However, to demonstrate the superiority of the Jewish god, Aaron's snake ate the Egyptian snakes.

Again, when Moses sets the plagues upon Egypt, he does so by stretching forth this serpent/rod. When Moses parts the sea for the passage of his people, he again does so with the assistance of this powerful rod/serpent. In the wilderness Moses strikes the rock with this same rod to create water. This object becomes so

"sacred" that it is one of the objects for which room is made in the Ark of the Covenant.

Before we examine some more ominous aspects of the serpent in Jewish scripture we will have to look at Numbers 21:9. Moses, who had thrown a fit when Aaron made a golden image of the Egyptian goddess of mercy and miners, Hathor

[ Exodus 32: 19-20] claming that God condemned such terrible action, himself makes and puts on a pole a copper, or brass serpent, claiming that God had ordered him to make and display this image to cure the people from snake bites.

" Yahweh sent fiery serpents [ seraphim] among the people; their bite brought death to many in Israel. The people came and said to Moses we have sinned by speaking against Yahweh and against you. Intercede for us with Yahweh to save us from these serpents. Moses spoke for the people, and Yahweh replied, ' make a fiery serpent and use it as a standard. Anyone who is bitten and looks at it will survive. Moses then made a serpent out of bronze and raised it as a standard ….. [ Numbers 21: 6-9]


We are informed , in II Kings 18:4, that this serpent symbol was so popular that the people continued to revere the bronze serpent until the time of King Hezekiah [719-691 BCE], who, according to the record "broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had burned incense to it ".

Here we see not only the divine power of the serpent, but also the connection with healing which pervades this part of the world. This action by Moses might show his Midianite heritage or the universal recognition of the divinity of the serpent, but it certainly shows a different Moses. One might ask how can a 'jealous God' condemn the golden calf and approve the 'brazen serpent '? What is it about the snake that commands such loyalty?



Page 15

Perhaps we can find a hint as to the position of power in Judaism when we discover that one of the most powerful of the heavenly creatures may have serpentine connections, the Seraphim.

We find in Isaiah 14:29 a description of the highest of all of God's angelic

creatures, the Seraphim. The word 'seraph' [of which Seraphim is the plural] can be translated " fiery serpent". Therefore there must be significance that the word used for serpent in Isaiah 14:29, Isaiah 30:6 and in the Numbers 21:8 description of a serpent, is the word "seraph" Could it be that these "fiery serpents" stood highest in the hierarchy of angelic beings? There is no doubt that the Hebrew 'shrpm' refers to serpents.

Judeo-Christian tradition, however, comes down very hard on this serpent concept, perhaps as a part of the conflict between the ancient maternal gods which underlie and support early matriarchal tribal traditions and the later paternalistic nomadic traditions. Where early traditions depict the serpent as one of the favorite theriomorphic forms of gods and goddesses, it becomes with the "fall" of Adam and Eve the infernal enemy of the so-called "one true God."

Great Myth NO PROOF NO REMAINS Great Folklore. Stories that is all. SHOW ME or US PROOF OF DRAGONS Then I will believe

once agin you have taken it out of context you know if i enterprate everything in the bible the way i want i could say god is satan. moses threw a serpent down by the pharo becasue a serpent is evil! he was mimicing what the pharases did to prevoke their god. go ask a preist becasue you alway take things out of context or dont know what they mean

wow can you be this dense?
isaiah 14 29
Do not rejoice, O (A)Philistia, all of you,
Because the rod that (B)struck you is broken;
For from the serpent's root a ©viper will come out,
And its fruit will be a (D)flying serpent.
30"Those who are most (E)helpless will eat,
And the needy will lie down in security;
I will destroy your root with (F)famine,
And it will kill off your survivors.
those who are sinners will eat of the friut of the serpent!!!! and the serpent will be casted down!!! i told you maybe you shouldnt use the bible i wrote it!! i kinda know the gist of it!!!

Here ya go. If you go to the thread, the scripture for each of the events is cited though you can google it just as fast.
i
Before dismissing this out of hand, I would ask everyone read the whole post, and read it from the premise that Yahweh and El (Elohim) the actual Creator are two seperate entities, (as many serious Biblical scholars have proposed), with Yahweh actually being the one of many Bene Elohim, which also includes the creature Satan, long associated with flying serpents and dragons. I repeat, I am not proposing that "God is a Dragon", but that the Creator (El, Elohim), created "dragons" as assistants, that have been mistaken as our Gods around the world, including the "Watcher Dragon" of the Hebrews called Yahweh, who through a minunderstanding of scripture is now worshipped by most Christians and Jews as the actual creator.

Here are the facts:

1. The highest heavenly creatures are called Seraphim, a word which the highly esteemed and scholarly Jewish Enclyclopedia states means "fiery flying serpent", though medieval Christians have transformed these "dragons" into the more familiar, swan-winged, "cartoon" angels of popular culture. When the ancient Jews translated the word Seraphim into Greek, the word they used was drakon, which is the word our modern "dragon" is derived from.

2. The only graven image/idol Yahweh ever permits is that of a "fiery flying serpent", obviously his personal image, This image has supernatural powers, and Yahweh allows it to be freely worshipped in Solomon's temple. As soon as the idol is broken, disaster befalls Israel and it has never recovered until the late 20th century.

3. The flood story of Genesis is believed by most Biblical scholars to be a "retelling" of near identical, yet far older Sumerian versions in which the God name Enlil, who is also subservient to a greater Creator God is called "a Great Serpent-Dragon of Heaven". His hymns also associate him with rainbows as we see in Genesis, and he is called "the good shepherd".

4. Some scholars acknowledge that the Name Yahweh comes from the Cannanite Dragon God Yaw, who like the Biblical Yahweh is a god of storms and floods, but is a "son" of the true Creator Elohim, also the name of the Creator in Genesis, not Yahweh.

5. Virtually every world culture had identified the winged intelligent dragon as a real creature, and most of the earliest cultures recognize it as the creatue that brought them knowledge of agriculture and technology. This is also true in the Judaic legends with the reptilian "watchers".

6. In Exodous, Yahweh leaves his dragon sized tent, and flies ahead of the Israelites to burn away impassable briars and scorpions. He marks the route by spewing smoke and fire.

7. Yahweh plops his huge dragon body in the bed of the Jordan River upstream to divert its flow so the Hebrews can cross its bed to attack Jericho.

8. He is specifically described spewing fire from his mouth and smoke from his nostrils, exactly like the dragon like Leviathan that the Bible states he "plays" with. (A female dragon?)

9. Many biblical passages imply that Yahweh physically consumed his meat offerings unlike the "fake" gods of other cultures. The Bible is very specific that Yahweh wanted salt on his meat as well, suggesting these offereing were physically consumed and not merely burned to ashes.

10. Like many legendary dragons, Yahweh occasionally "consumes" humans as well. In scripture, Yahweh demanded the first born of all Israelites, but the bible says it was possible to pay him money instead, on a sliding scale, also indicating the univesal dragon love of hoarding treasure.

11. The preferred prey of dragons in most cultures are "human virgins" for reasons which are not entirely understood. This trait is very apparent in the Bible as well, where Moses presents Yahweh with 32 Midianite virgins after the Israelite destruction of this tribe. No more is said of them so we can only assume they were "consumed" like Aaron's sons.

12. The Persian Zoroastrians, whom share much reiligous doctrine with Christianity clearly state in their own scriptures (the Denkard), that the "God" of Judaism and Christianity who watched of the Israelites and provided their laws was a dragon, and brother to the dragon Ahriman in their own religion. Interestingly, the storm dragon of Sumeria who flooded the world happened to be brother to the dragon Enki who livied the the garden of Eden and who "tricked" a man named "Adam" out of eternal life.

13. Some Christian gnostics also state Yahweh is a dragon in their scriptures.

14. Jesus stated the Pharisees were worshipping a creature that was NOT his father. Many Christians claim Jesus meant Satan, but this does not make sense, for the Jews clearly worshipped Yahweh and clearly recognized Satan as a distinctly different creature which they definately DID NOT worship. Could Jesus have been referring to the Yahweh dragon? After all he did not call to Yahweh from the cross, but to El. The first paragraphs of the Bible show these are two different entities, for El's creation story is completely different from Yahweh's, far less scientific one.

15. Yahweh is described with wings at least four times in the bible, a characteristic feature of dragons along with spewing fire.

Those are the words of a famous PhD, not mine. On the other hand, you have demonstrated time and time again that you know very little about the Bible.

And I am of the Blackfeet Nation and VERY proud of it.

DC since when did you become an expert on Native American lore?

actually thats from the bible an exact quote i think your the one who knows little and insist on trying to sound smart


i would also like to know

now if youll excuse me i need to go to religon theory and im going to be late ttyl.

DC perhaps you missed these in all the exitement....from bible origins...
http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html

You may notice i found it on google books and posted the link, thunderbird was only mentioned once and was referenced as a raptor; a bird of prey.

Some of those cherokee water dragon are depicted with wings as Archosaur pointed out with a pic. Oh, but then they are thunderbirds.s

If you are a real blackfoot, then you know I am right. I suggest you read Adrienne Mayor's follow book on Native American legends

Now many plains tribes had bothe 'good' thunderbirds and 'bad' maneating thunderbirds. It is possible then, that the 'good' thunderbirds were just really large birds while the man eating, lightning spewing thunderbirds are flying serpents/dragons. Recall the winged Piasa "dragon".

One of the most famous images of a draconic thunderbird is an ancient pictograph called the Anasazi Black Dragon. I'll let you guess why they call it that. Those dragons did get around! Maybe that's why all those pueblos were mysteriously abandoned.

Pardon me, WereGirl, but Huh?
"i told you maybe you shouldnt use the bible i wrote it!! i kinda know the gist of it!!!"

Well, im not in the spirituality and religion section... Im here... where the current post is... which isnt over there... so... post sources for THIS thread...

Source? Other than your head?

If you really understood how to make an argument, you would not start out with a conclusion and try to get the evidence to support your preconceived argument.

Again, misinterpretation. Adrienne Mayor's book only suggests that the legends sprung from the discovery of fossilized bones. Also, no where does it actually suggest anything about dragons. You're basing your hypothesis on... NOTHING.

Source?

I haven't got through your last reply to me yet DC, but thanks for reposting.

But this is the black dragon you speak of?



...Ya know when people look at the clouds and see familiar shapes?

Looks more bird than Dragon to me. Stalk like. But it's so faint it's almost impossible to see in the first place!

Just because it was painted "huge" doesn't mean the thing they were painting was huge.

The anthropologists named it a 'dragon', but what do they know?

Never misinterpretation. You really don't understand. This is exactly the case with Jones. I NEVER cited either of them as believing dragons are real entities. I cited them as a source for just the legends.

But I am pretty sure even Google makes mention of the good and evil thunderbirds. And Arch will probably repost the flying Cherokee serpent-dragon thingy when he reads this, though ii should be in this thread.

Yes Grem, I am familiar with that image. Thank you however for proving my point that the sea dragon Yaw was also depicted as a man, just as Ningishzida, Enki, Ea, etc. So for those that believe Yahweh looks like "an old guy with a beard" as wll as a fire spewing, wing flapp'n dragon, understand that the ancients believed he could be both, just as surely as the accounts of shape shifting Zeus. The New Testament even states the Jesus true form was "not like a man", and He does say his image/symbol is fiery flying serpent, so go figure? The gnostic Christians believed both Yahweh and Jesus were serpents/dragons in their original form.

For the record, I will say again that I do not believe dragons can turn their form into a human. It is physically impossible. This belief probably began when the 'dragon gods' left their civilized lands to seek a mate or feed on alcohol-filled German barbarians, so they decided to leave a human surogate in their place, pretending to be them in their human formi fake god. Of course the dragon long outlived his human 'stand in' which is probably why Zeus, Yahweh, Enki, Marduk, etc, always has a big beard, so each new human replacement would have a fairly uniform and familiar appearance.

Because we often attribute names to things based on their characteristics?

Like how we call the largest species of shark a whale shark? Or the smallest birds bee humming birds?

Did it not occur to you that because the bird looked... I dunno, maybe it looked evil, or because it was huge, or perhaps it's long serpent-like... the name "dragon" was attributed? Because EVERYthing I could see about it described the "Black Dragon" as a bird. Looks like a stalk to me.

In catholic school i had to writ the bible 3 times in 7th and 8th grade the whole bible through the year heh next time ill clearify

Pueblos? Dude they where abandoned because of a famine!! so the people moved!! also i dont need to read a book to know my old religon i grew up with my mom and grandparents teaching me about grandfather sky grand mother river father earth and mother rain. I grew up knowing about our brother bear and sister otter. About the sly fox and the world on a turtles back. And how the bear lost his tail dont not ever tell me what my ancestors belived in because no book can convey it. There was a spirit dragon nothing more. The thunder bird was that!! a bird!!!

dc, do you have any archaeological evidence that yaw/yam was regarded as a dragon?

PS. the menorah on the arch of Titus in my opinion is insufficient, and inconclusive. You may interpret it how you wish, I believe that it reflects roman/hellenistic stylistics, and therefore dates to Herod....ie, not the original menorah.
None of the depictions on the arch of titus menorah can be conclusively identified

so any evidence that can be identified as yaw?

well i really hate to be doing this but... DC never said Yaw

it was Yawah or something along those lines

and i have no archaeological evidance that dragons exsisted but that has not stopped me from thinking that they did now has it?

That's because you're a bit daft.

So you may think, however regardless of what is said i will still believe that at one point in time they did exsist and i hope to eventually prove this theory i hold

lol, hi DS...he believes that Yahweh is the Cannanite god Yam, a sea/river god of chaos etc. who was renamed Yaw by his father El who was the supreme high god before Bel Hadad took over the role.

He also believes this Yaw is a dragon.

you can believe whatever you wish...im not trying to impede anybody's beliefs....im looking at a theory being proposed in the most bizarre manner, its logic is circular, and many of its claims unfounded. I have always said that some things in it are acceptable, and have been considered so for a long time....others are more speculative, but are being presented as irrefutable fact. this i challenge.

i know that actually reading this thread may take time, and can be a bore...but it might prevent such misunderstandings.

dc has no proof as he knows i have shown links saying yaw wasnt a dragon but i only get dismissed

Fools often have much to say, but little of any value

There is no historical evidence of anything he has said. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
The links that he cites, the books, all that have nothing to do with actual dragons, which he does indeed acknowledge. Unfortunately for him, hes basically admitted by 1. not providing proof and 2. citing sources that do not support his theory that pretty much everything he has said hes basically made up.

DC, I know you really really realllllllly want to believe in dragons dude, but they didn't/do not exist. Sorry dude, but this shouldn't even be a discussion.
No one has EVER seen a dragon. If they have, I would like to see a link where there was a credible witness who actually cited the creature as a DRAGON. I don't want to get this mumbo jumbo from you that is entirely based off of your interpretation.

Obviously, I know you can't provide this.
On the plus side though, you have a vivid imagination. Perhaps you should start writing Fantasy?