Sure there is. Hundreds, even thousands of sightings, universal human belief, if they are real creatures, all the evidence suggests they must be intellgient, like the "dragons of old, or we would have caught one by now.

SO your saying you can prove they are intelligent because there is no clear proof they exist. Surely the more logical conclusion to the lack of evidence is that they dont exist. Lack of evidence simply cannot be used as a means of determining a solid argument. Its like saying hey the invisible man must be real cause I just looked round and i cant see him.

Thats not exactly true. There are creatures able to mix various chemicals to create a hot liquid and the difference between the liquid and fire is minimal.

See here for my opinion on that Link




That couldnt be further from the truth. The ability to create electricity is a far more stable structure, not needing to combine chemicals to create a combutable solution makes it far more reliable. Due to this, of course there are more creatures able to give off an elictric discharge. Fire of sorts does exist in the animal world, but your statement does not hold.

Also scales would not protect a dragon from its own flame. How could it, the flame must start off inside it, and to have such a tight knit chainmail armour it would never be able to fly. I agree a dragon would have had scales, but not like you suggest.

I don't think you understand what I said. EVERY herbivore can produce flammable methane gas, though they do not ignite it and use it as a weapon. On the contrary, only a few rare animals in the entire animal kingdom use electricity as a weapon.

No its not the same. There are thousands of sightings of unknown dragon-like cryptids all over the world, but they always manage to elude serious attempts to capture them. To there is the evidence. Even many of the photos cannot be explained, as well as voice recordings and sonor readings.

Our ancestors all over the world said they were intelligent, I am not making this up.

It is a big if, but the fact of so many sightings and the land-locked civilizations that noted them through time is an intriguing mystery, no? Did they all imagine the same thing, or were hundreds of our ansestors around the world merely crazy or apt to pulling pranks?

Sightings in and of themselves are indeed fact, but the description within the sightings is not fact. And no, it isn't an intriguing mystery. Land locked doesn't equal cultural influence lock. The vast empires that traveled and conquered in ancient times would have carried great influence on the regions they conquered.

I don't think the people were crazy, they were just easily frightened and influenced by things that they didn't understand, such as dinosaur fossils. I don't think it is hard at all to imagine stories of reticulated pythons climbing trees, for example, being embellished into radical and frightening stories.

And the fact that the populous of Europe had no direct access or abilities to view the strange foreign creatures they heard of, lends even more credence to idea that their dragons were exaggerations of known creatures, though not directly known to the general people who didn't travel.

We shall have to agree to disagree here as though i agree there are many serpent/dragon myths I do not see them as leading to teh existance of dragons. As to modern sightings these are really so varied I would be reluctant to conclude that a single species is responsible for them all. A great many are explainable by other means and the rest i dont believe are similar enough in nature to state that they have the same cause. Specific dragon sightings seem no more common than those of gnomes and fairies and anecdotes would not lead me to state they must therefore exist. Is it possible that you are so looking for dragons you simply see a disproportionate amount of them in comparison to all the other wierd and wonderful creatures of modern and ancient myth.

Yes, electric activity is common in animals, but only a very few are able to stun or kill prey with it.

Producing flamable gas is a FAR more common trait in animals can an electricity weapon. Surely you know that.

I never said dragons could not be killed. I said it is highly unlikely anyone could kill a dragon with iron age technology. Some scientists believe walnut brained dinosaurs could have destroyed mankind, let alone an intelligent, flying version.

But yes, modern man could kill dragons with today's weapons. It is no wonder why they are so timid and elusive now. This proves their intelligence.

Yes methane is commonly produced by animals but can you point to any that actually combust it (outside of drunken students who don't count).
One good or lucky shot with a bow and arrow or a spear through the eye? Which scientist believed dinosaurs would have wiped out man kind
That is merely conjecture though, it does not prove anything. You believe is shows their intelligence, that is not the same as it proving it.

Hi MUM! DC has put it like this...

The current stories and sitings of lake monsters are dragons today, they are very intelligent so, this is how
they manage to elude detection.

I'm sure though DC, can give you a more detailed response to your answer.




Regards,
Tom

Yes, I believe they are still with us. This is really the only explanation for the thousands of sightings by reliable witnesses, of large reptilian creatures, that logic dictates cannot live in deep lakes around the world. Imagine if such a creature was extremely long lived and intelligent, and would not require a large breeding explanation. Then one or two such creatures could easily elude scientific investigation. It is pretty clear they can even leave the water, according to several eyewitnesses and general dragon accounts.

And nothing about them really would have to 'defy science'. Humans can speak, so another animal could. Whales have a type of language.

Some scientists believe humans could become virtually immortal if the aging process could be shutdown, and some believe it may be possible. Spewing fire, if not an exaggeration, is certainly no less a feat that electrocuting your prey like an Eel.

The reason people believed they were gods was becasue they claimed they did 'god-like' things, like teach technologies, agriculture, domestication, laws, etc. And if true this only makes sense if they were instructed by some higher being, that at some point when human development was high enough, caused the 'dragons' to depart human contact. Some people, like Stichin, suggest these dragons were actually 'aliens', but this doesn't answer where did the aliens come from, and why hasn't so much as a single extraterrestrial lug nut ever been found..

One word: Scales.

But in order to breathe fire it has to come out from the inside, the fire will burn the flesh and organs on the inside. Plus scales can't protect against fire anyway, even metal melts when ingulfed in flames.

True true. And if you've ever seen what happens when the methane from aforementioned college students burns too far back on the inside... not pretty.

"Its like saying hey the invisible man must be real cause I just looked round and i cant see him."

LOL, that comment just made my day. Excellent analogy. To extend it further, saying that sightings of any cryptid that remotely resembles the traditional description of a dragon and missing persons is evidence of dragons is like saying that things blowing in the wind and people missing keys is evidence of said invisible man.

"You are still thinking with a D&D "scary dragon" mentality, and not a historical record "benevolent dragon god" mentality. "

If they're benevolent and not just non-malevolent, then what are they doing to help humans? And why do they eat thousands of them a year?

Just like to mention that apparently in Georgia we have a a few pterodactyl type flying lizard reports each year. We of course assume that they mistook a bird, but depending on one's definition of dragon, it could possibly be considered as one.

Of course we have a ton of UFO reports, demon sightings, etc. etc. so take of it what you wish.

This is going to be a long post due to me being away for the weekend and having quite a bit to reply to
Firstly, i wanted to say that, that is one of the best presented, and interesting posts i have ever had the privilege of reading and i am very greatful to Evangium for it. i am currently researching irish legends so i have copied and pasted the post to re read once i move over to the earlier dragon myths. I dont know how old you are, or how scholarly you are, but i take my hat off to you.

I agree thats its become very easy to lay claims on mythological beliefs or legends that are expanded from the original truth due to easy acces to half of the story given to us by the internet. One thing i noticed when i started my website was there are many websites who base all of their information from a book named Giants, Monsters and dragons (which i have read and is very good for what it is) This is a shame because you get a very half hearted study of a field which requires far more attention to detail.

There is also no evidence to suggest man has never killed a dragon. In fact, there is no hard evidence proving the dragons existencer at all.

Your theory on dragons teaching us technologies is one of many theories. it is not part of the whole premise.

There are plenty of sane adults who believe that a dragon could be killed by man (were it too exist) You seem to believe that a dragons scales would be impenetrable. For a material that can resist sharp iron i and still be light enough to fly would be a biological myracle. You forget also that almost all creatures with this kind of protecttion tend to have a soft underbelly. i challenge you to come up with the physiology that takes these impenetrable scales into account.

D. Methods of Slaying. Four tales have no slaying. One, from Carhampton in Somerset, exemplifies a religious motif: St Carantoc subdues the dragon by the power of his stole, displays it, and then lets it go. This is a common pattern in saints' lives; one may compare the legends of Sts Martha, Samson, Germanus, Marcel, Clement, Radegonde, Saturnin, and Armand.' The remaining forty-five stories fall into two groups: heroic combats by dignified methods, using normal weapons (19 instances); and 'trick' combats, where the hero uses various ingenious or unfair methods (26 instances). This division corresponds closely to that already noted between upper-class and plebeian heroes; only six tales with upper-class heroes involve trickery (Lambton Castle I, Bisterne I and II, Linton I and II, and Wantley), while conversely only two plebeian heroes engage in a straight fight (Aller, Strathmartine). I do not count the miraculous light at Castle Carlton and the magic ointment at Longwitton as tricks, for they derive from the world of high romance, and are not emotionally incompatible with the hero's dignity. The true tricks are marked by earthy practicality, oddness, or 'unsporting' quality; they show considerable variety, and there is sometimes more than one within a single tale. One may block the dragon's hole (Ludham); roll a stone into his gullet (Kingston St Mary); burn his lair (Ben Vair II); catch him off guard while feeding (Bisterne II); or kill him in his sleep (Deerhurst, Mordiford II and III). The monster may also be overwhelmed by sheer numbers when a whole community turns out against him (Mordiford II, Bures, Filey). The hero may gain advantage by hiding in a well (Wantley), a barrel (Mor- diford IV and V), or a glass case (Bisterne II). The latter is a peculiar device probably imitated from stories about cockatrices; Edward Topsell, writing in 1607, remarked: I cannot without laughing remember the Old Wives' tales of the Vulgar Cocka- trices that have been in England, for I have oftentimes heard it confidently related that once our Nation was full of Cockatrices, and that a certain man did destroy them by going up and down in Glasse, whereby their own shapes were reflected upon their own faces, and so they died.
This theme is related to that in the story from Penmynedd, in which a dragon is tricked into exhausting itself by fighting its own reflection. The hero may prepare for the combat by wearing special armour, either made of birdlime and ground glass (Bisterne I), or studded with spikes and blades (Lambton Castle I, Nunnington, Wantley), so that the coiling or lashing dragon inflicts injury on itself. This device was highly popular and recurs in variant forms: as a spiked barrel or series of barrels (Mordiford IV, Ben Vair I), a spiked red dummy (Llandeilo Graban), a standing stone draped in red and set with spikes (Llanrhaedr-ym-Mochant). The combat between More of More Hall and the Dragon of Wantley ends when a kick from More's spiked boot pierces the dragon's only vulnerable spot-which, in this farcical tale, is the a rse-hole. The hero may take advantage of the dragon's greed and his tendency to indiscriminate swallowing; he may lull him with milk (Deerhurst, Bisterne II); poison him (Lyminster III); or put him out of action with indigestible or glutinous food (Lyminster II, Filey). A Scottish trick is to thrust a burning peat down the monster's throat on a spear-point, or, after letting oneself be swallowed, set his liver on fire with a peat (Linton I and II, Cnoc-na- Cnoimh, Orkney). In all such tales, a homely object is ingeniously transformed into a weapon of destruction.

" I will tell you the story of the dragon of La Trinita. Once long ago, before any of us were born, a monster, a dragon they called him, lived in a cavern high on the mountain among the pines, up where you now see the convent of La Trinita. He used to come out and devour whatever he could find. The peasants could no longer send their sheep and goats out to pasture on the mountain side, and cows and oxen he did not fear to attack. Not only so, but human beings he killed and devoured, and even friars were not safe. Yes, two or three friars he also ate.
Then the great Duke Sforza, who lived in the castle over yonder at Santafiora, said, " I will deliver the land from this fierce beast." So he put on his armour, and took a long lance, and mounted his horse, and rode up the valley. But, when the dragon saw him, it withdrew into its den as was its way when people came out armed against it. But what did Duke Sforza do ? He fastened a red flag to the end of the lance, and thrust it into the entrance of the cavern. The dragon thought it was a piece of meat, and rushed at it, and the Duke drew it back so that the dragon came rushing out of the cavern with his great mouth wide open.
And the Duke grasped his lance, and waited there, erect on his horse, for the onslaught of the monster. It came on, always with its great mouth open, and, as it rushed at him, the Duke received it on his lance, and the lance went right down its throat-down,-down,-and it died. And the Duke cut off its head, and brought it to show to the people.
And its great jawbone is kept in the sacristy of the convent of La Trinita, where the sacristan keeps it in a box. You may see it there still. I have seen it myself, and that is how I know that the story is true."

Dragons are often featured in foundation legends, such as the Greek
legend of Kadmos (Cadmus), who founded Thebes after slaying a dragon.
In Constantinople the Serpentine Column on the Hippodrome with the
snakes of Apollo of Delphi was known to have talismanic powers in the
Ottoman era. The presence of the worm granted invincibility to Haftvid's
fortress, as King ArdaSir learned from the message on the arrow that was
shot into his camp from the worm's army.
Here it should be pointed out that in folktales and legends the figure of
a girl helper (Motif N 831) occasionally appears on the hero's side. In some
monster-slaying stories the hero must first gain the help of the woman-the
captive of the monster-to succeed, notably in order to learn the secret of its
vulnerability. Also, in many legends a human tyrant is substituted for the
monster.

There you go Evangium, bringing 'actual' sources of 'real' research into this again...


s' funny but it seems that the dragon-slayer part of the myth seems as important, if not more so than the dragon itself....at least in big mythical stories.
perhaps that cthonic function filtered down to Amos the shepherd in the English countryside, who wanted a slice of heroic pie.
perhaps it was a village vs village regional thing....our dragon was bigger, nastier, with teeth comming out of its a***, and our Reginald killed it with a bucket.

I don't think 'dragon' should fall into this category if the reports are of the pterodactyl type. The sightings are more likely to be pterodactyls than they are dragons (in the intelligent giant lizard sense of the word).

Thank you Dariune99. I'm 32 and at this point in time an average grade, 1st year external university student (studying BA Terrorism and Security).
One of the first units I did covered the development of worldview. Seeing some of the claims being made in this thread, reminded me of good point from one of the lectures; being that one cannot assume to know the worldview of a person, or group of people, from the middle ages, simply for the fact that our worldview has been shaped by different influences to theirs. So to say that what they percieve 'dragon' to be what we percieve it to be is a fundamentally flawed statement. As is the argument that it is common to all cultures.

Even today Christian Inerrentists still argue that there once was a flood so great that it covered most of the world's surface. Their proof tends to be argued along the lines of "every culture has such a story".
This is despite scientific modelling which shows that rain and flooding to this degree would have far more catastrophic effects than flooding the landmass; and historical evidence that shows many cultures tended to settle along rivers and other areas prone to flooding. And lets not even get into the problem of 1 'Noah' inbreeding to create every modern human...

And this is where I feel DC has gone awry with his dragons (no offence intended). He has followed this same type of thinking to get one unified dragon theory. Of course the problem with this kind of inerrant thinking is that the argument cannot be flawed, so it must be those attacking and interogating the argument who are flawed..

However, there are two actual facts in his hypothesis.
The first is that the god described in the old and new testaments is not the one God. IMO, There are at least 3 gods described in the bible (with the one in the new testament being an update on one of the earlier gods).
So its is plausible that Yahweh/Jehova are reinventions of earlier Babylonian gods, recast to fit the beliefs of the time.

The second fact is that the Eurasian dragon did most likely evolve out of the fantastic and legendary creatures of ancient Mesopotamia. The article I posted earlier shows a clear lineage between the griffon and the dragon.

Unfortunately, he's made that massive leap of logic to connect the two into a single theory...


I'm glad to see the dragonslayer has waded back into the debate since you made this post, since I've been waiting for an opportune moment to present these articles

Simpson, Jacqueline (1978). Fifty British Dragon Tales: An Analysis. Folklore, Vol. 89, No. 1, (1978), pp. 79-93. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Folklore Enterprises, Ltd.



Lovett Cameron, Mary (Sep., 1910). The Dragon of La Trinità: An Italian Folk-Tale. Folklore, Vol. 21, No. 3, (Sep., 1910), pp. 349-350 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Folklore Enterprises, Ltd.


So dragon-slaying is less about slugging it out toe-to-toe, D&D sytle and more about guile and cunning.

I'm also thinking that dragonslaying and virgin offering tales have little to do with dragons at all.

Markus-Takeshi ta, Kinga Ilona (2001). From Iranian Myth to Folk Narrative: The Legend of the Dragon-Slayer and the Spinning Maiden in the Persian Book of the Kings.Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 60, No. 2, (2001), pp. 203-214. Published by: Asian Folklore Studies, Nanzan University

True true. And if you've ever seen what happens when the methane from aforementioned college students burns too far back on the inside... not pretty.

"Its like saying hey the invisible man must be real cause I just looked round and i cant see him."

LOL, that comment just made my day. Excellent analogy. To extend it further, saying that sightings of any cryptid that remotely resembles the traditional description of a dragon and missing persons is evidence of dragons is like saying that things blowing in the wind and people missing keys is evidence of said invisible man.

"You are still thinking with a D&D "scary dragon" mentality, and not a historical record "benevolent dragon god" mentality. "

If they're benevolent and not just non-malevolent, then what are they doing to help humans? And why do they eat thousands of them a year?

Unfortunately, the author of that article doesn't seem to understand that the ancient dragon legends, which have a basis in truth, have nothing to do with the majority of later, purely invented stories that were deliberate farces merely spun to be entertainment. Even the religious stories freely changed to suit the audience, and the dragons were shamelessly added to many stoires centuries after the original versions had the saints' lives had NO dragons at all, such as St. George.

A wider function of the dragon legends (and of many other localized tales) is to embody the whole community's pride, its conviction that it is in some way superior or even unique. That the local lord of the manor should be descended from a dragon-slayer, or, better still, that a local farmer or country lad should have outwitted and killed a dragon, is a claim to fame which any rival village would be forced to envy. But it is a claim which often seems to be accompanied by a twinkle in the eye.
For, although 'The Dragon of Wantley' stands alone as an example of knockabout farce, there are plenty of other tales where understated humour is the dominant note; the division between heroic combats and trick killings is reflected in a parallel division between tales of lofty tone and tales of humorous tone.
It is noteworthy that the contrasting categories can be found side by side as variants in the same village (Lambton Castle, Mordiford, Lyminster); one variant may be moralistic and the other jocular, one may have an upper-class and the other a plebeian hero, or one may have a happy and the other a tragic outcome. Clearly, all these types were regarded as equally satisfying. The humour of the 'trick' tales depends to some extent on the implied contrast with the heroic combats, which were apparently regarded as a norm; if the hearers are expecting St George or a knight in shining armour, the farm lad with a pudding or the criminal in a spiked barrel will be all the more enjoyable by contrast. There is also much relish in ingenuity for its own sake, and especially of the dramatic contrast between redoubtable dra- gons and the humble domestic objects such as peats, puddings or parkins which are their undoing.
As for the spiked armour, it can transform the hero himself into a ludicrous monster, as in 'The Dragon of Wantley':

Had you but seen him in this dress, How fierce he looked and how big,
You would have thought him for to be Some Egyptian porcupig.
He frighted all-cats, dogs, and all, Each cow, each horse and each hog:
For fear did they flee, for they thought him to be
Some strange, outlandish hedgehog.

At the same time, the 'trick' tales teach the value of courage just as effectively as the heroic combats, together with the need for a cool head and a ready wit.
To make a memorable story, excitement, entertainment and discreet teaching should ideally combine, and so they do in the best of the British dragon legends.

This is going to be a long post due to me being away for the weekend and having quite a bit to reply to


Firstly, i wanted to say that, that is one of the best presented, and interesting posts i have ever had the privilege of reading and i am very greatful to Evangium for it. i am currently researching irish legends so i have copied and pasted the post to re read once i move over to the earlier dragon myths. I dont know how old you are, or how scholarly you are, but i take my hat off to you.

I agree thats its become very easy to lay claims on mythological beliefs or legends that are expanded from the original truth due to easy acces to half of the story given to us by the internet. One thing i noticed when i started my website was there are many websites who base all of their information from a book named Giants, Monsters and dragons (which i have read and is very good for what it is) This is a shame because you get a very half hearted study of a field which requires far more attention to detail.

This is a very non sensical reply DC. Your claim that Ddraig Goch was infact a parody or comedy is ludicrous. before i honour that with a reply i would ask for some kind of reasonable source because i have studied Ddraig Goch fairly intensly have have never heard anything which even resembles what you suggest.

You say all legends should be taken seriously except those in which a dragon is slain. With comments such as those it makes it hard to take you seriously, so in reply to that, why?

As i already stated, the naga was not originally a beneficient deity. Infact the Naga trive of India believed in the naga as a troublesom deity long before Bhudda converted them into something more beneficient. The norse legends rarely put a dragon in good light. Jormangand was hardly a beneficient dragon and neither was Nidhog. Grendel seems far too animalistic to have been described as good or evil but rather a creature out to protect itself. The french also had the gargoille and melusine which admittedly are not dragons but could be of the draconic family at a stretch and neither are particularly beneficient. Aapep from Egypt was hardly beneficient being an arch rival of Re and the same could be said of Tiamat. There are more as well, like Vritra from India, the Wyrms from England and the basilisk from Africa and England. None of these tales begun with the dragons being beneficient. Granted, most of the oriental or Celtic dragons are beneficient but that hardly covers the whole world.




Im afraid i agree with none of this. there are far few dragon believers now than there were even 300 years ago in my opinion. if you read some of the books by Topsell you will see that the educated, in his times regarded the dragon being as real as the bear.





There is also no evidence to suggest man has never killed a dragon. In fact, there is no hard evidence proving the dragons existencer at all.

Your theory on dragons teaching us technologies is one of many theories. it is not part of the whole premise.

There are plenty of sane adults who believe that a dragon could be killed by man (were it too exist) You seem to believe that a dragons scales would be impenetrable. For a material that can resist sharp iron i and still be light enough to fly would be a biological myracle. You forget also that almost all creatures with this kind of protecttion tend to have a soft underbelly. i challenge you to come up with the physiology that takes these impenetrable scales into account.

lastly, there is no need to be insulting. I though his arguments were every bit as intelligent as yours.

I noticed the same thing too, about the dragonslayer. The role of the hero is more important than the fugly itself

That almost has to be true. Human stories are unsurprisingly about human beings, not about vermin.

So, here's the headache maker: what the dragon slayer slays is part of himself. Pest control may be practical, but it is not a hero-deed . Transcending oneself and thereby advancing in spiritual attainment is a hero-deed.

There is also an alternate scenario, where the would-be dragon slayer sets out to smite the dragon, and makes friends instead. That's confronting threatening aspects of ourselves, and coming to terms with them, integrating them into a bigger self, a Jungian notion of mental health. But he would have been the first to say that it wasn't original with him. ("Prince Five-Weapons and Sticky Hair" has already been mentioned in this regard.)

There is a recent "children's show" with that premise, Jane and the Dragon, produced in New Zealand (a very nice location for mythical thought, BTW, where radically different cultures meet and coexist... not always sweetly and happily, but they coexist anyway...).

I put the description in quotes, because this is seriously adult stuff. But, then, "children's" fairy tales often are about the enduring concerns of humanity, aren't they? Makes you wonder if the point of telling the story might be as much therapy for the storyteller as education of the audience.

The bluntest exposition of the monster-is-inside theme in popular culture that I can recall off-hand is the classic scifi movie Forbidden Planet. The monsters there are frankly identified as arising from within the minds of the people doing battle with them. Realizing that becomes the key to the heroes defeating them.

Psychotherapy with popcorn - what will they think of next?

I agree that much of this type of mythology is about the hero taking on his own personal dragon. Many stories are merely elaborate ways of making a point. The hero must always have an advesary and what better than a gigantic fire breathing lizard to take up the role. Indeed jsut as the crazy stomping bad guy dragon has its rational place in myths i think the benevolent caring one does also. Within these it is not the dark side of ourselves that must be slain but perhaps the more civilized side. I see no reason to see any of the fabled dragons as more than symbolic.

Yet we have the ancient legend of David, who in addition to despatching lions and wolves, slew the giant/champion Goliath with a rock and a sling. Uhuh... A shepherd boy up against a seasoned, battlehardened warrior... Somehow I think the ancients were also prone to not letting the facts get in the way of a good story...

(in response to the wisdom of the ancients defence from DC)

A sling is quite a dangerous weapon, and a lion or wolf skull is probably no thicker than a man's. So a skilled slinger could dispatch any of those three and it would not be particularly extraordinary. Now a man kill a 50 foot long intelligent theropod dinosaur with a sword? That's quite a different matter.

Depends if he gets lucky and it goes through the eye. Though the 65 million year gap between anyone using a sling and theropods roaming the Earth makes it rather irrelevant.

Exactly, and since true dragons are just in fantatsy books. No chance there either.

Exactly, and since true dragons are just in fantatsy books. No chance there either.

Why would that be? Dragons have been reported as long as humans could write. pterosaurs have been reported only since their fossils have been found, and unlike intelligent dragons, a peanut brained ptersosaur could not elude mankind very long, especially in Georgia or Texas.

People are simply more comfortable today calling thier dragons pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, etc. But the fact these cryptids elude mankind with ease, suggest thet are the intelligent creatures our ancestors knew as dragons.

It's simple. Because pterosaurs, unlike dragons, we KNOW they actually existed at some point. So it is more likely they are ptersoaurs, not dragons. However even the former is highly unlikely.

Hey Gremlin, is you're pic an image of The Boogeyman from Nightmare Before Christmas smiling? Thats what it looks like...Just wonderin lol...

My theory is that their benevolence was purely one sided. Like a shepherd, they protected their flocks in thier own interests, not in their sheeps. I have read that the Sumerian words for human and sheep are virtually the same. The creator entity understood this from the bginnning, which is why, at a certain point, the dragons were 'expelled' from their temples, and 'feeding them' became purely symbolic. But the dragons were still seen in the wilderness, and according to may accounts sometimes preyed on the unwary. But once it was understood they no longer possessed power over mankind, the dragons became the ultimate creature for imaginary human heroes to conquer. But dragons were chosen as the ultimate creature for the people themselvesl believed the dragons were real due to the costant sightings. And they are still seen even to this day, though few connect the the giant reptilian cyrptids with their ancient gods. This is not surprising.

Dragons have been reported as long as humans could write. pterosaurs have been reported only since their fossils have been found, and unlike intelligent dragons, a peanut brained ptersosaur could not elude mankind very long, especially in Georgia or Texas.

I'm always annoyed when people mention it would be impossible to breath fire. (Been lurking, by the way.)

We know of creatures who squirt huge clouds of ink, produce a frequency of "sonar", have poison seeping from their skin, shoot toxic explosions out of their rear ends, stun prey using severe electric shock, and so many more! So what is so impossible about breathing fire?

Well all of them are small modifications on physiological functions. Breathing fire is not.

Considering how many Dragons were slain in various European folklores, it's interesting to see that not one part of any dragon's remains have ever been uncovered, you would have thought that such things would be kept as trophies at least once. That said, they are extremely prominent in a great number of Myths and legends, from the Eastern 'Serpents of Sea and Air' which were mainly benevolent, to the much more malevolent European version.

I suspect the whole 'breathing fire' part of the Dragon stories (which mainly occured in Western tales) was more a matter of making them appear more fearsome, after all, it's a lot more valiant to say 'I hath killed a 3-story tall monster that did spit fire', rather than 'I went out on a quest 3 months ago and hath found bugger all'.

The Eastern tales of serpents have often been attributed to Giant Squid or the like, whales have been found with sucker marks on them that prove that there are far larger squid in the depths of the ocean than we have so far encountered.

The thing is, you can't just take a small lizard, stick wings on it, supersize it and then expect it to fly, something the quoted size of a Dragon would be as manouverable as a potato in the air, and would probably shred it's wings in the first beat. Even if it did have hollow bones and used hydrogen in it's stomach to increase lift (another theory as to how they could breath fire), you're basically talking about a Hindenburg of a monster, you wouldn't need a lance to kill it, they'd be on the verge of exploding every minute of the day.

Well all of them are small modifications on physiological functions. Breathing fire is not.

Fire breathing is a big change Mattshark, but no more impossible than other examples of nature developing new organs or uses for organs. Frankly, a six-limbed vertrebrate naturally evolving on Earth is a bigger stop for me. If there are dragons, I believe that they either are not native to our biosphere, or were HIGHLY modified.