Your assuming that they have the same metabolism as us. How many anti-oxidants do other carnivorous reptiles need? About none maybe?

Maybe the just liked the taste, or the lightheadness feeling it would give. Many dragons clearly preferred beer, or so the legends and hymns state.

Yes that is true dragons are living creatures in the religious texts but in present times are just thought of as symbols of their past culture and religion. The same goes for the christian's views, dragons are just stories from the bible and people don't think of them as actual living creatures.

Yes, particularly in the case of one of the best known dragons (Yahweh). Oreintal dragons, as a rule, seem a bit less bloodthirsty, though there are some accounts of them eating humans as well.

Obviously, the dragons needed an incentive to raise their flocks of humans. The Creator was obviously a genius to come up with such a symbiotic relationship.

They do seem to be actual creatures though.

A genius in the sense of making people sacrafice their daughters to a dragon that as far as i can see does nothing posative at all...i mean the only good thing they seem to have done is push some ship ...and that was only after it got wine

Oh look my last post was completely overlooked.

I wonder why?

I do hope DC is compiling some sort of amazing folder of proof for me.

If we simply look at the Yahweh story, we see this dragon rescuing a tribe of humans from slavery, feeding them, giving them laws, etc. In return it asked for offerings. Although the first born son (and animals) of every household was a required offereing, Yahweh often let families 'buy' their children back. There is a detailed pay scale in Deuteronomy based on the relative nutiritional value of the person in question.

The greatest good of the dragons was destorying threats to early man, teaching him agriculture, animal hubandry, etc.

Everything I stated is in the Champ thread. I believe Champ is a dragon because of its general description and the fact that Native Americans in the region drew pictographs of large, scaly, man eating winged creatures that dwelled in the water. And like other dragon legends, the native american ones stated this creature expected offerings of animals.

He already has one.

But if dragons were put here to protect and help us... why did we have to offer them our first born? I don't understand how u don't see a flaw here

Whilst i check out the Champ thread in depth, you can find some other examples which support that Dragon's still exist.

HeHe

I don't think that Champ is a dragon but some creature we havn't discovered yet. The Native Americans probably saw this creature, and feared it becuase they didn't know what it was, so they created legends about it, and the story became more sensationalized over time.

The 'skeptics' are correct. If these lake monsters, thunderbirds, dinosaurs etc were merely unintelligent beasts, then yes, they could not elude us as these cryptids have. But Champ is only one of HUNDREDS of accounts of large beasts hiding out in deep lakes. Champ and Nessie are seen the most becasue their stories are best known, and are in areas with a lot of potential witnesses. But there are dozens of other lake monsters with their own history of sightings going back hundreds of years.

For example, "Nessie-like" creatures have been seen in other scottish lochs, but most people are only aware of the Loch Ness sightings.

if you examine all of the cryptid books and threads, you will see that there are many such creatures, reported all around the world. It is just that few of the accounts identifiy them with dragons, despite this being the most obvious solution..

Spot on. And it's the same with all the "dragons" DC mentions.

If you look at any art of real creatures in the same context, you'll see those are exaggerated. Now imagine if you only caught a glimpse of something unknown to you, how distorted your mental picture would be! And this regurgitation of such an animal.

There is NO factual documentation of Dragons. A fact has to be capable of being verified, none of the stories and drawings can be.

Using examples in Biblical texts is all well and good, if the same book didn't state that there were locusts with human faces or that a man was the son of a God. You can't use such examples as fact.

Until flesh and blood Dragons can be found, or some yet impossible to gather proof of spiritual beings can be demonstrated, it should be taken with no more than a pinch of salt.

EDIT: Water is a highly deceptive environment. It distorts how things look and we lack a lot of knowledge of what lies beneath anyway. Animals, branches, stuff... coming in and out of the water, so quickly. One second you see it, the next it's gone. Even looking at a fast space of water with NOTHING jumping in and out of it, you often think you see a dolphins back, or such.

Which is why lake monsters are a load of ****ing tripe. Until someone catches one, they shall remain tripe.

Wow HAJiME, you're really taking no survivors here are you? You're just crashing into the foundations of DC's theory and watching it die alone in the rain.

Great post,but DC cannot be moved by logic.

Let's be honest here, it's not difficult.

He shall continue to reply though, with the same utter garbage. Thinking that because he has an "answer to everything" and no matter how illogical it makes him right.

Sad but true. I'd say something encouraging but no matter how much you crash at his tower, he'll build more on until it looks like an MC Escher painting.

People have been sent to the gallows by witnesses less reliable than the kind of people who have seen and described lake monsters and sea serpents.

Thse include unimpeachable men like military officers and ship's captains who knew they would be subjected to ridicule for thier troubles.

You apparently thik they made it all up, I happen to think that they didn't.

Not all drgons apparenlty engaged in this practice, and in any case, you are applying modern values here. Dying in childhood was extremely common in those times, and women were essentially 'breeding machines' until they were spent. Offering the first born child was not nearly as big a deal then as it would be today.

While a child would be hardly a mouthful to a dragon, this was more of a covenant ritual simply so the humans would understand they 'belonged' to that dragon. As we can see, in some cases you could pay the dragon a monetary 'ransom' instead.

Assuming that there was a species of dragons then in the logic of evidence should we not have found some tangible evidence of their existance. For example we have physical evidence of some of the smallest creature that lived 165 million years ago. But we have no physical proof of dragons such as fossils or imprints of their exsistance. Could it be possible that bones found by these indigenous tribes found prehistoric fossils and their attempt to re create the fossil structure saw this "dragon" and thus the stories began.

Undoubtably yes, also mix that in with some real life creatures shake well and hay presto you get the dragon legends

The problem is that all of these ancient cultures spoke of these creatures as their living contemporaries, and in the Yahweh stories, he rescues his human tribe. In turn they build him a tent home and feed him choice animals every day.

The same applies to the stories all over the world. The Chinese government has 'dragon tenders' on their payroll.

In England people burnt bones around cities because the smoke supposedly kept the dragons away.

There are accounts of who cities seeing the same dragons.

None of this makes sense if they simply saw old bones and believed dragons once lived but not in their lifetimes.

As to lack of fossil evidence, if these are intelligent creatures who do not want their presence none, they could eat or burn the remains of their dead, or being very advanced lifeforms, may have solved the problem of aging, as some scientists believe we may do.

I've met plenty of Asian people who don't care what you say about dragons (and yes, I live in an area with a high population of Asians). I've even been to Japan and they don't act like that. Sure they respect the dragon as part of their culture, but they're not running around trying to get everyone to believe in dragons and smiting people who don't believe in them or mock them. And if our current society is as mature as we'd like to think, then they shouldn't care about one silly commercial. It's just a commercial after all. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Don't we have commercials that some people find offensive? Of course. Do we make a big deal about it and protest against the destruction of our culture? No. And the Chinese communistic government isn't going to let a commercial like that be played because they don't want their country to throw away it's culture. Do they find it insulting? Maybe. Do they really care THAT much? Probably not. I highly doubt that a whole country is going to rebel against it's government because of a stupid commercial.

I am just relating the facts. The Chines did indeed ban that commercial, and anything else disrespectful to dragons as I understand it. ( I do not even know if the dragons looked oriental in the commercial in question). I think it was a good idea. After all, anyone who thinks a basketball player can 'slay' a dragon is an idiot to begin with. Some things are simply too stupid to be broadcast or written.

And some real Chinese people I correspond with believe in dragons as spiritual entities. I never said everyone in Asia does. Many people in Asia now believe in some strand of Christianity or Islam as well (blissfully ignorant of the role of dragons in these religions as well).

Now whose writing does this statement make you people think of? BTW if I had to choose someone to slay a dragon I think a 6'9" man weighing in at 210 lbs with a vertical leap well over 40 inches would be a good start.

mmm... ham...

obviously you have been playing too much D&D.

Oh i dunno, i think he's actually pretty spot on...i mean a 5'5" middle ages bald man with a pot belly isn't exactly going to slay a dragon.

Speaking of which! What about all those dragon slayers? like St. George and Hercules?

Have never played that game. Sorry I don't try to live a fantasy vicariously through a video game.

If only it was just a video game

Actually, Invaulable, the main difficulty in finding a fossil is not the size of the creature, but it's rareness. The number of things that must all occur in order for a fossil to be created are all unlikely events. Even some of the relatively abundant species have yielded only a few complete fossils.

Even the rarest, most human avoiding of animals that are known to exist have at least once bees spotted for a long enough time for a proper decription to be produced. No animal contemporary to man, no matter how rare, has never been seen. Thus they are known animals. But as this is the cryptids forum I guess such logic doesn't apply.

Except they are constantly finding new species.

Anyone remember the deer type creature with gills from the Congo that they found?

See here we go again, please show us where you got this from. Scan it, link to it, take a photo of it, I don't frankly give a damn. But don't reference something without quoting it.


There's a difference between making stuff up and misinterpreting what you saw.

If you really think that It's impossible for these documented sightings (that are apparently so plentiful, I know nothing of and you seem reluctant to show me) to be simple exaggerations, then you're an idiot.
Your brain fills in the gaps for you if it didn't catch everything. It's so easy to think (or "know") you saw something, when you saw nothing at all. Same with hearing. If you're tired, it's even easier. In situations out of the ordinary for you, your imagination runs wild. Which is why personal accounts are almost entirely unrealiable. Most witnesses involving crime describe people wrong when they KNOW what they were seeing... How the hell do you expect people to accurately describe something they, at the time, were unawear they were seeing?

I saw a peacock flying once. I double tacked and still couldn't work out what the hell it was. It was quite far away and all I could see was wings and what looked like a great serpent tail.

Edit

The oldest of all dragonslaying stories (such as Enki vs. Apsu) were probably territorial disputes between dragons, and probbly bloodless affairs. Marduk vs. Tiamat was simply a fabrication of this earlier story for the god-human son of a dragon god would seem more powerful than the father dragon god. As Anthropologists note, as mankind became more confident his gods became more manlike and the man gods and heroes defeat the older dragon gods.

But understand these people believed the humanoid gods were often larger than the dragons! They thought the bones of mammoths were the bones of thir heroes, and when found, buried them with great honors. The idea of a human sized hero slaying an enormous dragon would have been absurd to anyone up until modern times and the new human gods of semi-literate youth that we call comic book super heroes.

St. George is a bad example for although there was an ancient Roman soldier saint by this name, there was no dragon in his story until the late middle ages when it was simply invented to make his life more interesting, and the dragon-fearing populace embraced this new story. In fact, when the real George lived, dragons were still recognized as the highest of heavenly creatures (seraphim).

However, there are many localized dragon slaying stories that seem to simply be a dragon being a nuisance for several years until finally becomes bored with an area and leaves. The first clever person who notices it is gone then fabricates a story about driving it away in a battle, and over the years this is exaggerated into a dragonslaying story. But the stories were believed becasue everyone 'knew' that dragons were real, with accounts of whole cities seeing them flying, and official, intended to be factual, histories relating how a certain king was eaten by one, etc.

Common sense should dictate "that a guy with a sword" could never 'take down' a tiny brained T-Rex, let alone, an intelligent creature of similar proportions. It is unlikey a human would even have the strength to penetrate so large a creature's keratin scales, just as related in the Leviathan ode, that no human weapon could pierce its body.

But they WERE SEEN. That's the whole point. We see similar dragon accounts all over the world, and in many cases even thier behavior is the same. And all over the world these terrifying carnivores were seen as benificent gods. No one would think that of a T-Rex, but the ancients believed this because they actually interrelated with them, and they were not mere predatory monsters, but sentient beings.

We also see the same characteristics in their art all over the world, essentially large, long necked, flying reptiles. Are there variations, yes. But there also is when we see different cultures draw a lion or elephant.

LOGIC then, does suggest that all of these ancient cultures did have contact with the same mysterious creatures, that have succesfully made the mainstream modern world believe they never existed, despite continuous sightings of them, often in the very same localities as the ancient legends.

Is that really neccesary? Many of these sightings with so many witnesses are in every book about sea serpents and such. Whole ship's crews including scientists seeing giant reptiles that could not be confused with any fish.

"Sightings have been reported for hundreds of years, and recent work by Bruce Champagne identifies more than 1,200 purported sea serpent sightings.[1] Sea serpents have been seen from both ship and shore, and by multiple people at once, and sometimes by reputable scientists."



From the Wiki article on sea serpents "

Sorry, I thought it was only D&D and video game playing geeks who fantasized that a person with a sword could kill a T-Rex sized reptilian carnivore. Even our illiterate peasant ancestors were not that dumb, which is why the dragons being killed in Medieval art are usually the size of a goat.

So you cannot provide me with the documented "proof" which backs up your claims? I am so surprised, I can't tell you.

Yes, it is bloody necessary. Because If you're trying to convince me that Dragons exist, you need to provide the "proof" which you refer to time and time and time again.

It's not my place, or responsibility, to find it for myself. You're trying to convince me. I want to see what you are referring to when you mention the apparently countless documented evidence, directly. You can't comment on something without being able to quote it and show it's source, which you haven't done once.

Learn how to argue, then come back to me... with proof to support your claims. You can't expect me, or anyone else, to believe your "proof" unless you do so.

Oh, one last thing...

Before you argue that you aren't trying to convince me of anything, you'd have given up a long time ago had you not wanted to. So why am I still here? Because I'm intrigued by your claims - you comment on history with a lot of knowledge, but you can't expect everyone to know what the hell you're talking about and go grab their sea-serpent manual to check what you're claiming against documented account.

But they were just stories though, to me stories arn't tangible evidence there's no way to prove that it actually happened. When indigenous tribes find bones that they don't recognize they usually create a legend, and as it's told over time it gets sensationalized. Also humans are the only species that has the intelligence to bury, and burn their dead, no other animal has that ability, and intelligence to bury or burn their dead.



That's true, but it's a possibility that some tribes could just come by a fossile of a skull or something of an animal that they wouldn't recognize and come up with a legend or some kind of story about it.

Actually, they are usually the ones trying to convince people that mythological creatures are real. Dispite the fact that the ONLY "evidence" they have is old stories that mention them.

Like I mentioned in one of the other thread, insane people do not question whether or not they are insane. Rather, they are conviced that what they believe is real, and everyone else is insane for not beleiving them. Sound familiar to anyone??

Logic has nothing to do with any of your posts. Old texts and ancient sightings mean a bunch of nothing,so don't throw the word logic around.

Isn't that calling the kettle black. You believe in dragons.

i believe it probly due to civilizations diggin up fossils seeing the bones of giant sharp teethed animals then they probly exagerated the story

And the same logic can apply to dinosaur bones being found and thinking they were dragons. Why is it that the logic of one avoids applying to the logic of the other? Why is one a case of misidentifying bones, and the other not?

Ok well it looks like im the only person who actually knows a little about D&D i'm going to make a few statments to clear the air for a few people




The online version is the only "video game" version of it and believe me it is nothing like the proper version and traditional verson of Pen and Paper



what do you mean by that? as i clearly stated above there is only one version that can be classified as a "video game" and it is horrible in every way shape and form, i played 5 minutes and hated it




and DC im ashamed of you, making such a comment, yes it is a fantasy game, but it is a game for people to let their minds wander into fantasy, and it gives people a chance to be apart of something, for instance my novel i am writing well im using D&D with my friend to help me plot out anything that could go wrong in it, to make you really identify with the characters if you were in their postion, and so far plenty has gone wrong and i have plenty of things to change that.