You have no idea what you are talking about.

Dragons were NOT considered 'evil'. In Egyptian mythology the Seraph serpent-dragon is a guardian, exactly as in hebrew theology, with the dragon guardians around the heavnly throne.

In Greco Roman mythology the exact same thing. The are pets and assistants to the Gods, guarding sacred groves and such, and this is the reason why there is a serpent-drgaon in the guardian of eden. Athena has a great serpent as a guardian companion and they were considered extremely wise in virtually every culture. Even if a serepnt/dragon is slain, the God/Hero must honor its spirit as we see in the myths. And in may myths the dragon isn't slain until the story has been Anglisized. In the earliest Jason story, the Drakon swallows and KILLS Jason, but Athena asks the creature to spew up his body and she restores him to life.


Even the 'heros' who supposedy slay dragons in the earliest myths are actually other dragons! Most, if not all all stem from the oldest of all Enki, called a 'great serpent dragon of heaven' who defeats the chaos sea serpent Abzu. Only later is it acknowledged these dragons can assume human forms as well. This dragon was one of the favorite Sumerian gods and scholars see him in other cultures, such as the Canannite Yaw/Yam and the Hebrew Yahweh. Enki warns the sumerian noah to build a boat, he builds a garden called eden, e befuddles the builders of the tower of Babel, all exploits later attributed to the fire breathing, winged, Yahweh dragon, who even orders Moses to build an idol of a fiery flying serpent. Yahweh's conquest of Rahab is a retelling of Enki and Abzu.

Of course theologians are reluctant to concede Yahweh is a dragon god, but all of the evidence points to this as has been demonstrated here many times. And what are the chances it is only a coincidence that both Yaw and Yahweh have the same Father El, the same enemy Ba'al, and the same consort Asheroth. Give it up. All of the ancient evidence supports what I am saying.

No it doesnt.

your usual soundbites are entirely misleading interpretations of the evidence to hand.
Dragons, as we in the west picture them NEVER existed.

trying to 'prove' an universally single source for 'dragons' is not possible.

understanding the process by which 'dragons' came about is.

besides your gross generalisations DC and your lack of appreciation for the materials you use, your argument is full of flaws that youre incapable of understanding/comming to terms with.

perhaps ill explain later, but im interested in what Capeo Nik Xeus WraithGod and the others make of your reasoning, so ill just read for now.

Why don't YOU give up? The "ancient evidence" only supports what you're saying if you personally interpret and misconstrue it so that it does so. Nothing scientific supports your claims at all. You have yet to address any of my points on the impossibility of your "dragons".

You strike me as highly uneducated, especially since I have been unable to find any reputable scholarly websites that support your point, and the fact that you're attacking the person debating you rather than their argument says a lot about you.

I would also like to add that descriptions of "great serpents" really don't imply dragons at all. They imply snakes, which were highly respected in ancient societies whether they were seen as forces of evil or good.

Hello Little Grem; long time no see.
Weather or not one believes they exist, it is clear from the heated discussions that pop up that dragons still have an impact on our culture. Your preposition that dragons are a composite totemic concept is well-reasoned, but not yet proven (any more than the descent of the legend from a world-wide idea). Nonetheless, your discussions and insight are usually welcome (at least by me).

It is worth noting that while DC believes in dragons (as do I) he has never said that he is proving that they exist. He states (and proves rather well) that they are a world-wide cultural phenomenon. Thus when he uses Biblical translations he does not prove that serephim were serpentine (or that they exist) but is stating that the early Hebrews believed that the highest angels were flying fiery serpents.

While I may disagree with some of his conclusions, I have yet to see any evidence he has brought up to be incorrect.

There he is!! Still waiting on that book... /:( To quote Caligula: "I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the night. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and therefore I am a God."

Meaning, I am certain God is not caught up in what form people see him as whether a man, cloud, dragon, etc... so ones insistance that God be recognized as a 'dragon' starts to fall on deaf ears. And to quote him again :"Let them hate me, so long as they fear me." I'm far more certain that this is the way God operates.

If anybody is 'uneducated' in this subject is it you. You have absoutely no idea what you are talking aobut, and have made no points that require addressing.

There are depictions of these ancient near-eastern dragons from Egypt, Judea and Sumeria, and they are long necked quadrapedal and winged reptiles. I have listed many sources many times, you need only go back and read my threads. But just to give you some help since you are absoutely clueless, in the Louvre, we see a depiction of Ningishzida and Dumuzi, guardians of heaven and the prototypes of the Hebrew Cherubim, with long serpentine necks, clawed feet, long tail wings and reptilian head. Enki-Ea is described in a hymn with a scaly body, sharp teeth, and heel-less feet, exactly like a theropod dinosaur, indicating they had actually seen such a creature. The Egyptian Seraph has a hieroglyph that is a four footed winged animal that looks like a "dragon" but is called a fiery serpent. This is becasue the word serepet in the anicent world could be any reptile. Even in modern literature, winged, footed dragons are often called 'serpents'. The same Seraphim in the Bible are described with arms and legs, and the dragons on the temple menorah also have fore and back legs.

Even some dragons in the western hemisphere have this same body style despite being so distant from the eurasian examples.

Finished licking your wounds? As Archosaur said, no one can prove dragons (or any kind of God/entity) actually exists, until they appear before us, as our ancient ancestors believed they had to them, but I have demonstrated that ancient peoples all over the world believed in unacannily similar creatures we now call dragons and worshipped them as their Gods. And if our ancestors were right, and the dragons they worshipped were/are real, than I believe by explanation is quite compatible with the ancient accounts.

I have proven you wrong, time and time again. I am amused that you still continue your useless prattle.

You think that because you know almost nothing about this subject. I AM looking at the ancient language. Both the Egyptians AND the Hebrews believed in a fiery flying serpent called a Seraph, and its hieroglyph is of a winged four footed 'dragon". The ancient Jews even translated the word Seraphim to Drakons. There are reptilian dragons, probably representing Yahweh on the Temple menorah as depicted on the Arch of Titus. The word Seraphim means fiery flying serpents, and their images have been found on a libation bowl in Iraq that was probably booty from Solomon's temple. Winged reptilian dragons that have arms and legs are described in ancient Jewish texts. Tannyin only becomes 'generic' when modern Christians attempt to hide the fact that Yahweh is a dragon god, with dragon assistants.

So I agree with you, we must start looking at the ancient languages, and they prove exactly what I am saying. That is why Tannyin were dragons for thousand of years. It was only in modern times that they were turned into whales, jackals and serpents becasue modern Christians wanted their Seraphim 'angels' to be swan winged blond haired anglo saxons, not fying serpents like the bible says.

Do you think it is only a coincidence that fiery flying serpents translated to dragons by the ancient jews sing praises to God in Isaiah, and Tannyn 'dragons' sing praises to God in the Psalms? Of course not, they are both names used by the ancience Bible writers that means large flying reptiles that served their God. And why would any culture have a generic word that could mean a "whale" when the creature is described in the middle of the desert. That is plain stupid. But modern Christianity would rather be 'stupid' than admit that the bible actually says the intelligent flying reptiles are the highest heavenly creatures, including the winged, fire spewing Yahweh who ordered Moses to make an idol in the form of a fiery flying serpent.

No it doesn't. I'm not talking about theologians. I'm talking about historical scholars and archeologists. There is no connection from Yam to Yahweh. There are a lot of connections to other myth cycles but Yam particularly was abandoned when monotheism started competing with Levantine polytheism. Again please show me the translations that support your theories. Seraph was borrowed by the greeks from the hebrew language. Sarap means "to burn" and serapim does mean fiery serpents. Problem is it was never used that way in hebrew writings to describe the same beings the greek translators used to describe angels. Not to mention they were never described as dragons either.

You also ignored everything I said about the sumerian and mesopotamian myth cycles. Please show me a depiction of Enki as a dragon. The closest you'll find is a man with fish scales or a fish tail, because he was lord of the sea. He's a symbol of human fertility and consorted and got drunk with Ianna. He was depicted as a human in almost every case and never as a wholly a serpent or dragon. In the same myth cycles of the time Yammu (who is Yaw or Yam) is an evil deity who sinks ships and causes storms and was a minor diety in the pantheon.

This whole "Only later is it acknowledged these dragons can assume human forms as well. " is just not the case, sorry. There not depicted as dragons in the first place. In egyptian mythology there are both good and evil snakes. They weren't depicted as dragons until far later than their inception due to greek influences. Chief among the serpents was Apep who was wholly evil and warded against in egyptian culture. He was just a giant snake.

I'm not saying there aren't depictions of dragons as benevolent creatures in many early cultures, primarily east asian, but they certainly all aren't and they also aren't the origin of the myths you purport they are. You're also calling things dragons that aren't. Serpents, lizards, crocodiles and other reptile depictions of gods are not dragons, they're just animals in the same vein as other familiar animals that were worshipped as gods.

Depictions of snakes and serpents which are common in our early history do not constitute dragons.

In this quote right here, you are agreeing with the whole point of this topic.
It doesn't matter whether or not dragons were portrayed as good or evil, gods or beasts, none of that is what this topic is about. If you actually believe these things existed the way they are portrayed in fairy tales, then as warped as that may seem to the vast majority of the world, then you go right ahead believing. And just because you have read a few books on these things doesn' mean that nobody else knows what they are talking about. You are letting your fantasticle little beliefs warp your interpretation of these books. You are reading into it what you want it to be. You are getting the info that you want to find, and stating it as fact. Unless you were there, in these times of history, and witnessed any of these events, you cannot claim that you know them to be true.
And like someone else stated earlier, the fact that you are attacking the people who post their opinions says alot about you. If you want to argue your point, fine, do so. But stop with the immature insults to everyone who does not agree with you, which seems to be pretty much everybody.

Dont try to judge me and how much I know or do not know by one sentence. "In my opinion the word is a generic term for large beast or something like that."

The rest of my post is just stated facts

So would it follow from DC's comments that dinosaurs were the 'nephilim'? .. the b****** children of angels since what is a dinosaur but a lame dragon . That's why the stories about nephilim always describe them as huge. There's my random comment for the day lol.

You may not agree with DC, but the K-T event is just as much of a well supported theory as is gravity and electricity. It is well supported by facts, one of which is the FACT that non-avian dinosaurs are only found below the K-T boundary. And since you suggest that all these different cultures on different continents had encounters with dinosaurs, then you would have to consent that there would be more than just a few remnants of dinosaurs in order for them to survive 65 million years into the time of civilized man.

Well it's not. Christians simply turned it into a generic term because they were troubled by the fact Tannyn dragons sang praises to God exactly as the Seraphim, also referred to as 'dragons' by the ancient Hebrews.

From a simple examination of the literary evidence without any modern Jewish or Christian bias, Yahweh would be cosidered a serpent or dragon god by anthropologists.

You obviously know just enough about this to be 'dangerous'. Many of the depictins of Gods on sumerian cylinder seals are purely speculative by the finding archaeologist when he writes his paper. On the other hand, we have hymns to Enki that call him a "Great Serpent Dragon of Heaven". And in Bablyonian culture his name is changed to EA and he is STILL called a dragon and phyiscial descriptions speak of a serpent-like head with sharp teeth, body covered in scales, and clawed feet without heels, just as if someone were desribing the feet of a theropod dinosar.

So these are not legless snakes, but what anthropologists would call dragon dieties. The same fo the Serphim. in both Egyptian and Hebrew descriptions, they are reptilian, but have wings and feet, again, a traditional, world-wide dragon form.

And no, the winged dragon of Egypt was not influenced by the Greeks becasue they are described in hymns in the very ancient Pyramid Texts.

I know apep is only a snake and therefore never mentioned him. I bet you never even seen the hieroglyph of the seraph dragon so you have no idea what I am talking about. Your knowledge about this subject is very basic, as one would learn in high school.

hi Archie, always a pleasure. Ive been a busy chappie lately, and thing are getting busier in the next few months, but ill pop in when i can. While most of my post concerned DC's theory it also addressed the subject of the thread, that in my opinion dragons never existed as we picture them. Furthermore i'd add that the greeks (who coined the phrase) also percieved them as myth, and also that, where we find composite beasties which have been later labelled 'dragons' by us, they exist as concepts. All societies are layered, it is impossible to say that all Greeks believed/disbelieved in the literal existance of dragons (as depicted and described in the Hellenistic period and later(with wings etc) from circa C4th BC on) some understood the significance of the myths, it is likely that some took them literally...like DC. Hence the generalisations and absolutes that DC relies on is inherently flawed, but necessary for his argument.
I have a nine year old neice, who for some time knows that Santa doesnt exist, but when christmas time draws near....
This may demonstrate the wavering and multi-faceted nature of 'belief'.

Whilst DC hides behind his caveat "If we accept that the creator god of the bible exists....then dragons are real". He has affirmed that he believes this. Since he is limited by this paradigm, by attempting to 'prove' his theory he is attempting to prove that they exist.

It relies entirely on his interpretation of the evidence as others have pointed out. Interpretations which have little or no support from academics on the subject.

Proving that dragons are a cultural phenomenon is easy. They are evidenced almost everywhere. Stating that they are important culturally, and have great significance is similarly self evident. The evidence that DC presents is always interesting for its own sake, and for the reasons of its presentation...i should restate that his interpretation and presentation of that evidence is most often mistaken and misleading.

It is quite clear from his numerous posts on the subject of Seraphim that he is trying to prove that Seraphim were exclusively flying fiery serpent servants of god.
and that every use of the word is either a direct reference to them, or an allusion to their attributes. his interpretation of the evidence as you say means that he believes, and tries to prove that the Hebrews believed them to be so: which i contest for the reasons stated above, amongst other considerations.

you may believe that his evidence is not incorrect, and in some ways you are right, the evidence he presents is real....his interpretation of it is rarely reliable however. Besides which there is a wealth of information which he does not present because it compromises his argument, there is much that he discounts because it does not fit in, or ignores, or hides(hopes nobody picks up on).

This self-proclaimed expert appears at first to know what he is talking about, but under examination his limitations become apparent.
I have yet to see him spell Ushumgal correctly. Since his entire theory rests upon this term ultimately, you'd think he'd get it right. "Umshagal" or other variants cannot be excused by typo's etc.
I disagree with his interpretation and presentation of the Sumerian texts, and pictorial evidence.....
His interpretations of ..... Ushumgal, Mushushu, the whole sumerian panthenon, The libation vessel of Ningishizda in the louvre, Cannanite theology, Yam, Yahweh, Seraphim, The Brazen Serpent, Chinese dragons and history, Greek myths of Drakons, ketos, leviathan, the arch of titus...etc. (i know ive left lots out)
you name it, ill tell you why i disagree....

just one to get us started. DC posted a picture of a bixie...possibly this exact beastie...

he claims that these 'dragons' are the earliest evidence of dragons in china.....pls dont make me find the numerous quotes. He claims that after they 'left' mesopotamia they went to China, gave dignitaries rides and taught them technology etc. He claims the traditional 'long' style chinese dragon is a later concept that resulted in years of no contact, because they left there too...or retreated from contact with the chinese.
I have demonstrated a few times that this is incorrect. That the long/lung dragon is evidenced 3000 years or so earlier, and that the bixie beastie that DC labels 'dragon' most likely did have its origin in mesopotamia, but its representation and possible concept arrived with the Han dynasty(c.200BC) who were conspicuously embracing of aspects of western/barbarian culture. not only this but it evolved in form (and probably significance) becomming 'feline' and no longer draconic.
hopefully you and others here can appreciate this point. but if necessary ill elaborate further and provide evidence.

Hwyl.

Well, gravity and electricty are both proven to exist, and I can show you and prove to you that they are real. The KT event is not provable. There are facts that back up a theory, but no actual proof of what it was, or it's effect on the world.

When I referred to "a few remnants", I was more referring to particular breeds of dinosaur that might have been a little better suited to survive than others. Not claiming there were a few survivors of all different breeds of dinosaurs, but rather a number of survivors of a small number of breeds.

Again, keep in mind everyone, this whole topic was just an idea, a theory, not even backed up by solid evidence of any kind. I just wanted to hear what others thought, and some of their possible theories. I think a few people posting under this topic are taking it a little too seriously, and what I'm really loving is the few who are angrily defending their theories as if they were actual fact, and everyone else who doesn't believe it are idiots. And acutally insulting people who don't believe the fictional stories that they've dredged up to be fact. All I can say to those people is GET A LIFE!!!

I like it! I've thought about it myself. It would explain some things.



Yeah, that would have been nice.

I'm pretty sure anthropologists - professional, experienced ones - have done more than just a siple examination, dear. And yet they still don't share your views. You can't pin it all on "bias"; we've matured beyond that in all scientific fields I can think of.

What do you mean it's not? I simply stated what English words that original word was translated into in the KJ and NKJ versions of the Bible. How can you say that isnt a fact? Anyone can get a lexicon and look those up. It isnt a matter of opinion. I dont think you really even read my post all the way, you just like to disagree

Also, there are many different opinions on this subject. Please, do not sit there and try to act like your opinion is the only one that counts and anyone who doesnt agree is ignorant. I DO NOT believe that dragons (such as the ones in the fairy tales) ever existed. We can argue about that never ending, but there will be no proof. I do believe that their is a 'kernel' of truth in there somewhere, but there were never fire breathing, flying dragons of such great size.

It can be proved by one of my previous posts: it's just not possible for natural selection to come up with a beast like that on Earth, even if there was an overrated documentary on a plausible physical design for these creatures.

Yes, I agree with you. What I meant to say was that there will be no proof that such dragons ever existed.

the bible also said jesus could walk on water, turn water to wine, and perfom mircales. it also pronounced any other faith as blasphemy, and so on and so on. while the bible can be used as a historical document to some length, one must also consider that it was a form of population control. do this and you ge rewarded, do this and you fry.

as to the mentions of dragons in the bible specificaly, many other religions/societies had beliefs concerning dragons, giants etc. (i.e. greeks, romans, scythians, and so on) so it could simply be that they believed they had existed or did still exist, besides it makes a great story.

as to the comment about them being thought up from fossil remains, this is the only theory i've heard any scientific proof that it might be true. and it doesn't even stem directly from dragons, but griffons. the scythians used to tel travelers aong the trade route from europe to asia that there were great winged beasts in the mountains that guarded the gold there. upon reseaching this area, one will dicover many many reamins of protoceratops (i think thats the one). the wings most likely stem from the frill on the back of its head, which could easily be mistaken for the bone structure of a wing to ancient civilzations. there are tons of preseved eggs, and the gold was being revealed by the erotion of the mountains. which ironicaly were named after an ancient mongolian word for gold.

I really doubt you are a better scientist than the onese who were technical advisors to the 'dragon' television 'mockudrama'. You really just sound like 'a guy who likes dinosaurs' (but not fire breathing biblical ones)..

Why is it that when someone puts a good argument to you you fire back with barbs and insults. You may be a vocabulary wizard and a fantastic story teller but you can come off unneccessarily gruff if you have someone disagree with you.

No, just the fact virtually every human culture believed they existed, and sometimes whole cities reported seeing the same dragons.

I am sure you don't believe in anything so stupid as ghosts or ufo's just because people claimed to hav seen them, right?

No. The Nephilm are probably mankinds memories of the neanderthals, who indeed had disappeared by the time of the great, post Ice Age floods.

It is unlikely a sexual union between a reptile and a human would produce anything.

Because clearly, I am a guy. It's overrated because people put way too much stock into it, not because the science isn't good. Grow up. I never claimed to be a professional, but I have read so many works by the professionals and taken enough classes to be able to reason. Unlike yourself, apparently. You're not offering the evidence we keep asking for, and again, if you're so sure dragons exist because of literature, why don't you look from other perspectives? Such as, I don't know, biological ones, considering these "dragons" had to have been BIOTIC.

"It is unlikely a sexual union between a reptile and a human would produce anything."

Your own ignorance is proven here. A union between a reptile and any member of Homo sapiens would produce nothing at all. It's not unlikely, it's certain.

"I am sure you don't believe in anything so stupid as ghosts or ufo's just because people claimed to hav seen them, right?"

UFOs = unidentified flying objects. Which I have both seen myself, and seen VIDEO and PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE of. If you mean UFOs of alien origin, and you're trying to imply that aliens are crazier than ****ing dragons, there is more evidence (and more scientific reasoning) behind extraterrestrials than your dragons. Funny, people actually go around saying the exact same sh** you're saying, but trying to pass it off as alien beings instead. Again, it's people twisting the evidence.

How, how HOW can you call something like ghosts stupid when you believe in dragons? You have no right. Like ravergirl said, why do you just come back with insults when someone brings up genuine points against you?

"No, just the fact virtually every human culture believed they existed, and sometimes whole cities reported seeing the same dragons."

SOURCE. PLEASE. DEAR GOD. (roflz)
Virtually every human culture has its own version of large beasts, monsters, usually reptiles because we have always had a fascination with these creatures so removed from our way of life. That does NOT mean dragons, unless by dragon you mean generic large reptile, in which case all of your previous points fall to sh**.

It is only not 'proveable' because you cannot go back and time and observe the event directly. But it's evidence is everywhere and all you have to do is dig down 65 million years or so into the soil and you can prove that it happened. There really is no debate. And you must understand to qualify as theory it must be testable and an accurate predicter of future occurences which it is and has been.


Okay, but still you would have to have many individuals throughout time throughout the world. The survivors you speak of are, in a way, still around. But they evolved into birds and where in the process of this before the K-T event. Large therapods simply could not sustain themselves. How are animals supposed to survive if all of their prey are gone? Well, they can't really do that.


It is actually a hypothesis. I have seen you angrily defend your idea a few times also, so how can you sit there and ridicule others for the same as what you are doing? And you do of course realize that people have been giving their ideas on the subject. It just so happens that they don't all fall in line with your ideas. So what is wrong with that? Nothing, IMO. Being blind to your own hypocrisy, doesn't make you any less hypocritical. If you post an idea you should expect people to show you whats wrong with it, if indeed something is.

We appear to have separate discussions here, with an assumption that they are all the same one.

1. Was and is the worldwide belief in dragons a significant cultural force?
This is a question that can be resolved through research. It does not necessarily posit the existence of dragons. There is also the question as to weather there is a world dragon legend, or, different legends, that people call dragons.
I think the body of evidence (as well as the heat of the discussion) indicates that dragons remain a powerful cultural force.
As to weather it is a single phenomenon (with common or linked cultural origins) is inconclusive, at this point. My personal suspicion is there is a common origin, but I would like to see more proof from both sides.

2. What is someone's personal or spiritual belief in dragons?
As this pertains more to the spiritual, or religious, we are not looking for hard scientific evidence here. Nonetheless, we can still look at original religious texts and myths regarding the subject. Also, as we are talking belief systems here, common courtesy all around is proper.

3. Are or were there real dragons?
This is an entirely speculative question (as we have no solid evidence). Asking for proof here is much the same as asking for proof of an undiscovered anything else. Still, we can apply what we know of science here.

Well yes Archosaur, we do appear to have several seperate discussions going on here, but the OP was interested in the theory that some dinosaurs were still living when man came into the scene and that's what sparked the dragon myths to start with.
It is a very interesting theory, in my opinion.

You're so dumb you don't even understand 'sarcasm'. Of course 'a sexual union between a reptile and human would produce nothing'. You being so immature to not understand 'sarcasm' leads me to believe you are probably a 13 year old who has read too many 'big golden books of dinosaurs', and now you think you are a dinosaur 'expert'. Sorry, but you are just a kid.

The ghosts and ufo remarks were sacrcasm too. But you are too immature to understand it. There is no more evidence for ghosts or ufos than there are for 'dragons' yet people like to take their own pet topic more seriously than others. In fact, of the three, dragons have far more credence since large flying reptiles (pterosaurs) with up to 40 foot wingspans are an indisputable fact, thus vindicating world-wide dragon legends to a degree, whereas there is no physical proof of ghosts or aliens from another planet visiting the earth.

I doubt you know more about 'science' than I do. In fact somewhere back in these posts you said a very ignorant thing about dinosuarstupid thingt

Reptiles are so opposite to human that they often are potryed as "bad guys" or monsters, and because they are found everywhere on earth but antarctica ever culture knows of them, and the ones that dont are given the idea of dragons when cultures collide, through wars etc. or simply by exploration of new lands and the like. Dinosaur bones in the ground, discovered by almost every ancient culure were considered monsters, dragons and thus even more cultures had dragons. And in modern times when these cultures have all merged so much, the dragon is a common image.

But due to lack of physical evidence of their actual existence, I believe that the common, mainstream, accepted, explanation for why so many dragons is the best one.

Oh, by the way, of course I believe in UFO's, only an idiot would think that NO ONE, EVER has seen a flying object they couldn't identify. But ghosts, well, ok, ya got me there.

By ufos I meant the belief that they are the craft of extraterrestrials.

But you are making yourself a hypocrite. You think the ancient and medieval people didn't actually see living dragons but only dino bones, despite hundreds of eywitness accounts. Yet you think modern people actually see aliens and flying saucers, because they are more believable to you than dragons. (I guess you are unaware that most authenicated ufos are actually dragons).

As for dragons being cosidered Evil, this is really the beliefs of only the most most primitive ancient peoples, overly emphasized today by the dominance today of these same north europeans.
these are probably the only fairy tales you know. In the great ancient cultures including the original version of Judiaism, the Gods who bring mankind laws and technologies, essentially making them 'civilized' was done by dragons. All these similar beliefs of benificient dragon gods from all over the world based simply on seeing some bones? Would you think T-Rex was a benificient God of wisdom if you saw its skull full of sharp teeth? No you wouldn't so why would you think ancient man would?

Actually DC, I never said I believe in Aliens or flying saucers. I dont believe in flying saucers, piloted by beings beyond earth.

But UFO's exist. UFO means Unidentified flying object. Do you think that no one has ever seen a flying object they couldn't identify? Well if you do you are wrong. I once saw a strange light hover and zoom across the sky at night. I couldn't identify it. Thus it was a UFO. Nothing to do with aliens or flying saucers. It was UNIDENTIIED.

Also, YOU are a hypocrite for saying that thousands of modern UFO and ghost sightings can be ignored but anceint dragon sightings cant be.

Its pretty pathetic when the best you can do to prove your point is point out my spelling errors of ancient sumerian words translated to English. I have editors do that for all of my books, so don't worry, you won't find spelling errors in the plublication.

And thank you for providing a picture that shows though seperated by thousands of miles, the 'god-dragons' of Sumeria are virtually identical to those of ancient china. And it was not I who said 'dragons gave rides to dignitaries' but the ancient Chinese annals do, just state so just as seriously as any other historical event.

Is it true we also find earlier elongated, wingless serpent depictions in China? Yes. But what does the actual ancient Chinese texts say. They acknowledge there were snakes in China as we know, and that ancient man depicted snakes in their art just as every other human culture. But the ancient texts do not say these snakes are gods or deities. What they do say is that the oldest dragon gods had WINGS exactly as the Sumerian dragon gods. So you are wrong again as usual.

And these early serpents look nothing like the later chineses stylized dragons that are composite animals, created long after dragons no longer lived directly with mankind and taught them technologies. Every time you attempt to discredit me you only demonstrate your almost complete ignorance on this subject.

I am interested that you didn't reply to my post, DC?

this thread gives me a heachahce, dragons do not exist nor that they ever did

Prepare to be flamed at.

Naw, he's just a little kid interested in Japanese anime though curiously, not real Japanese culture like the belief in dragons. Not worth the trouble to respond to.

That was saracasm. The point is that the belief in dragons in the middle ages was probably greater than the belief in UFOs (as Ets) is today. Towns actually paid bone burners to keep up a stench 24 hours a day to keep dragons away. All becasue they saw a few old bones? No. People constantly complained of dragons stealing their stock and burning down their barns and whole countries remarked seeing them in the sky, and did not confuse them with meteors. They knew all about Halley's Comet and others too, and didn't think they were dragons.

me the little kid? heh funny im not the one arugeing over the belief of dragons... i mean cmon....

Billions of Oriental people still acknowledge dragons as beneficient spiritual creatures. If you think they are silly, you ought to drop the cartoon japanese name. Yes, I do think you are a little kid. Nobody else would use an Avatar like that.

Exactly.
This coming from the middle aged man.Hmm.

still coming from a 55 year old man sittin on his computer argueing dragons exist, my avatar, dude seriously look at yours looks like u took a picture of your kids toy and cropped it to be your avatar. think its time to grow up and stop believing in dragons,trolls, and goblins. ha u amuze me

Like I said to the kid, a billion orientals believe in dragons, and I bet 99% of them are smarter than you.

At least you are honest enough not to deny you are a little kid..... not that that was in question by anyone.

And its not a kid's toy, not that I don't believe you are very knowledgable on that subject, since you probably have a toy box full of them.

Actually it part of a costume, and made quite a deal of money in prizes........ and it is possible to drink a 'long neck' wearing it.

i think there are some type of dinosaurs only smaller in size and more adept to survive made it to medievel times but they couldnt fly or breathe fire. or for some rare reasons a group of birds evolved backwards

Ouch. Nasty, nasty.

I don't think they are if they are believing a mythological creature is real. Sounds not to smart to me.

You can say the same think about anyone who believes in a Deity. And whether you think it is 'smart' or not, there are brilliant scientists that believe in Gods/Dieties.