Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Dragonic Religions
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Cryptozoology, Myths and Legends
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
The Maharaja
QUOTE (Undeadskeptic @ Apr 20 2008, 03:36 PM) *
I was not saying I come merely to flame or to pick fights, nay I come to debate about dragons (Although yes I have been lead astray by the conversations at times) I was making a generalisation as a sort of wake up call to all of us here just arguing off topic. If we're going to have this many dragon threads at least we could argue about dragons.

Also you have no place to tell me what is and what is not good for me.

Actually that is exactly what you were saying,what im saying is if you and dc contiue the pateince of the mods will run out
And then youll both get banned.
Elite
have u got ANY proof at all of this..............................i didnt think so
Undeadskeptic
Im sick of you misinterperating what I wrote. I did not mean that comment as some sort of flame war trigger, I meant what I told you I meant. Period.
Dragon Seeker
QUOTE (Undeadskeptic @ Apr 20 2008, 03:51 PM) *
Im sick of you misinterperating what I wrote. I did not mean that comment as some sort of flame war trigger, I meant what I told you I meant. Period.

Ok, now can we get back on the topic please?


QUOTE (Undeadskeptic)
I love video games. Never been much of a cartoon fan though, even as a kid I just didn't like cartoons. I prefer The X Files. And movies, I love movies. Good ones, bad ones, most movies are fine by me. I watched Reservoir Dogs last night, it was great. So yes I suppose you could say I havee returned to the forums after a period of enjoying wht you consider to be childish recreation. I just fail to see how it relates to dragons.

I feel that three major areas of though amd opinion are growing here:
1. Dragons are intelligent animals that act as gods over the human race, supported by DC.
2. Dragons are creatures of magic, currently extinct but soon to be ressurected, supported by Dragon Seeker and several others.
3. Dragons/Dragon-like animals may or may not exist or previously existed alongside humans, Archosaur and Otterwynd(?).

The loose fourth is the denial that dragons ever existed or still exist today, which is the majority of these forums. However there are slightly varying degrees of this fourth stance, some might include Archosaur in this group.

I wonder how this will all turn out.

We all know none of this is about dragons anymore - the reason we come to these threads by the dozen is to argue. About anything, usually each other. It seems dragon threads are just an excuse of sorts to break the rules (Not that we all do mind, thats just how it seems) to make our own rules. Eventually dragons are forgetton admist it all.


Well the whole resurection thing that was just silly, but the other part of #2 i do fully support and i support #3 for the most part, but #1 is a load of bull i mean if Dragons were gods over us then why havent we found them yet?
Lady Otterwynnd
QUOTE (Dragon Seeker @ Apr 20 2008, 12:12 PM) *
Ok, now can we get back on the topic please?




Well the whole resurection thing that was just silly, but the other part of #2 i do fully support and i support #3 for the most part, but #1 is a load of bull i mean if Dragons were gods over us then why havent we found them yet?

If they really were Gods, you'd think they'd care if we changed them into human figures to worship. If I was a dragon God I'd be kind of ticked if my creations started to worship something they created instead of me. You think they'd do something about it.... prove to everyone dragons are really Gods, but no.... Besides, if all the ancient myths are actually just myths, that means dragons still don't exist. Sure they can be in stories and religion, but that doesn't mean they're real....
Dragon Seeker
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 20 2008, 07:20 PM) *
If they really were Gods, you'd think they'd care if we changed them into human figures to worship. If I was a dragon God I'd be kind of ticked if my creations started to worship something they created instead of me. You think they'd do something about it.... prove to everyone dragons are really Gods, but no.... Besides, if all the ancient myths are actually just myths, that means dragons still don't exist. Sure they can be in stories and religion, but that doesn't mean they're real....


touche

however i am shure they were real at one point in time, we however have just not found the evedance that proved it, hopefully someone does soon and if not i hope that someone could one day be me, then what would all of the skeptics say huh?
The Skeptic Eric Raven
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 19 2008, 09:39 PM) *
My, almost the whole "gang" is back now.

I predicted their short attention spans would cause them to wander off with so many enticing cartoons and video games out there.

But now they are bored with those as well.

I wonder how long it will be before your childish antics close down more threads. But wait, Saruman is 'on' to you now.

Perhaps good 1 month ban on dragon topics would be nice too. thumbsup.gif
That would sure get rid of all the bickering.
Lady Otterwynnd
QUOTE (Dragon Seeker @ Apr 20 2008, 12:23 PM) *
touche

however i am shure they were real at one point in time, we however have just not found the evedance that proved it, hopefully someone does soon and if not i hope that someone could one day be me, then what would all of the skeptics say huh?

Perhaps they were real, perhaps they weren't. I'm in the grey, I suppose. There are no physical traces of dragons on the planet, yet every culture seems to have dragon legends. Too much of a coincidence I think, but to say that dragons were gods? Not believable in my perspective. There are some New Age/Pagan people who believe dragons are beings just like us, except they live on a different plane of existence. IF they exist, I'd be willing to assume that's the explanation for them. But, I can't say yes, and I can't say no considering the evidence.
Dragon Seeker
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 20 2008, 08:11 PM) *
Perhaps they were real, perhaps they weren't. I'm in the grey, I suppose. There are no physical traces of dragons on the planet, yet every culture seems to have dragon legends. Too much of a coincidence I think, but to say that dragons were gods? Not believable in my perspective. There are some New Age/Pagan people who believe dragons are beings just like us, except they live on a different plane of existence. IF they exist, I'd be willing to assume that's the explanation for them. But, I can't say yes, and I can't say no considering the evidence.



Well, your right we have found no physical evidance, but if you look at my sig... you'll see they are eternal, maybe not physically hell, we may have not even found traces of them yet but in the hearts of the believers they live for eternity
Lady Otterwynnd
QUOTE (Dragon Seeker @ Apr 20 2008, 03:52 PM) *
Well, your right we have found no physical evidance, but if you look at my sig... you'll see they are eternal, maybe not physically hell, we may have not even found traces of them yet but in the hearts of the believers they live for eternity

Very true, DS, very true. As long as people believe in anything, it will remain real, at least to them if not anyone else.
Dragon Seeker
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 20 2008, 10:54 PM) *
Very true, DS, very true. As long as people believe in anything, it will remain real, at least to them if not anyone else.



Well then maybe the other people need to consider what we (the believers) think (and by "we" i'm referring to myself and any1 else who thinks that dragons did exsist in the past but are gone from the world today) and see the topic of "Dragons" as, now most times if i see a book, video, movie or game with "Dragon" in its title i check it out and most times it turns out to be fantasy, but still i continue searching, for the one thing that may have been actual sciance to prove the exsistance, and maybe just maybe i'll find it, and im shure by speaking my mind on places such as UM i will get ever closer to finding what i have searched for
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 19 2008, 10:30 AM) *
Dinosaurs are no longer considered reptiles, fyi. They're more closely related to birds than any kind of reptile based on their skeletal structure and DNA. I think he was referring to you giving DS false information and fueling his desire for dragons to be real based off of his experiences with videogames. We're not "childishly attacking" you when you post false information DC, we're pointing out the fact that you're not always right, even when you think you are.


No, it is you who are mistaken. Wiki was the quickest source but this is accurate, scientific information. Archosaurs are reptiles. You are not as familar as this as you think. Dinosaurs and Crocodilians are very closely linked , and are both archosaurs. Base on your post you are probably are unaware how closely related birds and crocodilian are. With the dinosuars they are all Archosaurs. Therefore a crocodile is more closely related to a bird than it is a lizard. I don't believe I have ever posted false information here, controversial, but not false.

from Wiki:

Archosaurs (Greek for 'ruling lizards') are a group of diapsid reptiles represented by modern birds and crocodilians. This group also includes extinct non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs and relatives of crocodiles.

There is some debate about when archosaurs first appeared. Those who classify the Permian reptiles Archosaurus rossicus and/or Protorosaurus speneri as true archosaurs maintain that archosaurs first appeared in the late Permian. Those who classify both Archosaurus rossicus and Protorosaurus speneri as archosauriformes (not true archosaurs but very closely related) maintain that archosaurs first evolved from Archosauriform ancestors during the Olenekian (early Triassic Period).
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 20 2008, 03:11 PM) *
Perhaps they were real, perhaps they weren't. I'm in the grey, I suppose. There are no physical traces of dragons on the planet, yet every culture seems to have dragon legends. Too much of a coincidence I think, but to say that dragons were gods? Not believable in my perspective. There are some New Age/Pagan people who believe dragons are beings just like us, except they live on a different plane of existence. IF they exist, I'd be willing to assume that's the explanation for them. But, I can't say yes, and I can't say no considering the evidence.


I never stated dragons were true gods, but creatures recruited/modified to to assist a creator entity as 'surrogates", and therefore mistaken for gods. Of course, it is a matter of definition as to what a god is. Many scientists belief there is a creator entity responsible for the order in the universe. My theory, which explains why dragons were believed in and worshipped all over the world, and apparently still seen today (large cryptid animal), simply suggest that this same creator may have developed/modified a formidible flying reptile of the Mesozoic to serve as caretakers of this planet until mankind became firmly established. And this all fits very well with most of the theologies we know that have dragon deities.
WraithGod
They need to look over the classification of dinosaurs again. However closely related they were to crocs, there's overwhelming evidence that they were warm-blooded, and exothermy is a defining characteristic of the Reptile class.

Anyways. You still haven't addressed any of my points about the physiology of dragons, so let me dig them up again. Maybe you'll have actually done some research by now, hmm? Funny how people pick your arguments apart one by one but you can't bother to even try.

If it encourages you at all, I'm able myself to come up with counters for each of my points, but I'm not about to play Devil's Advocate on your behalf. Though I've got counters for those too.

A nice little collection:

QUOTE
Then explain to me how a 30-foot-long small-prey dinosaur could have evolved a third pair of functional limbs in 65 million years and gone undetected? SERRATED back spines? Pointless. A spade on the tail? More possible, but Baryonyx would also need a much more flexible tail in order to explain the evolutionary benefit of such a thing, which would certainly be defense. This would apply to any dinosaur of the time. Gliding = no for all but the smallest of creatures. The bigger they are, the bigger exponentially the wings would have to be. Again, sparrow versus Quetzalcoatlus. And that certainly comes nowhere near explaining how the sixth pair of limbs would become functional; bats and birds, the true fliers of the vertebrate world, all used the practical means of transforming their forelimbs. You would be much easier to believe if you were arguing for wyverns, but too late, you've said your piece.


QUOTE
The problem with these (main points from the Discovery Channel's special on dragons) is that, though they are plausible, they are not possible and there are many holes. If you read carefully, you will catch phrases like "magical" and "special bacteria" that fill in where specific explanation is not available through hard science. Once you really get into the details of the creature, it would take pre-meditated engineering to design it. Natural selection on this planet could not.


QUOTE
First off, the largest reptiles lived/live in warm, tropical regions and are semiaquatic. Reptiles are cold-blooded and therefore large reptiles do not live up mountains or in the north, where barbarians lived. Reptiles are cold-blooded and do not have the metabolism to be able to survive actively all year round in a cold environment, and also do not have the metabolism to be active land predators.

Second, Earth-born vertebrates have four working limbs. Their DNA since they first evolved has only been encoded to deal with four limbs. This includes bone structure, musculature, enervation, and the appropriate brain size/proportion/region to deal with them. If you see more than four limbs on a vertebrate, they are not functional, they are simply overcopied bits of genetic code. To imagine that six-limbed giant reptiles roamed the earth without any six-limbed small predecessors is perfectly ridiculous by scientific standards.

Third, reptiles and other cold-blooded creatures have nothing on mammalian intelligence. Crocodiles come the closest, but though they care for their young they are primarily instinctive and their problem solving abilities are pretty much nonexistent. They can memorize their territories well and recognize patterns in how their prey move around, but this, again, is instinct-driven. There are many THEORIES about crocodiles having problem-solving abilities and even communication beyond that of your usual beast, but no hard evidence, and by this I mean formal experiments and not just observation in the field. Sharks have demonstrated problem-solving, but they are fish, and measurements taken of many species indicate some degree of endothermy.

As for the Bible accounts... the Bible is a great story, but I don't take it as anything more than that. Keep in mind that the Old Testament is like 4000 years old and religious leaders have decided that it's not to be taken literally. If you literally believe in the dragons there as dragons and not uneducated and embellished views of ordinary creatures, that's fine and dandy, but show me evidence that they're not.

And as for the WORD dragon, there's no reason to believe that it always refers to an intelligent, huge, reptile and the word used isn't just the word for giant beast. Translations are always interpretations, and often the translation is not as precise as it should be.

If your only point regarding this is the existence of Quetzalcoatlus, keep in mind that its body was the size of man's, it had four limbs (all of which were designed for mobility), and, oh yeah, it has been extinct since the time of the dinosaurs. Birds are the rulers of the sky now, not reptiles (although there is powerful evidence of pterosaurs being endothermic, in which case they would no longer be reptiles, which leaves your point debunked).


About the third repost of this, I believe. As for the word thing, here are the definitions from English alone. Imagine whart crossing the language barrier could bring about.

QUOTE
"1. a mythical monster generally represented as a huge, winged reptile with crested head and enormous claws and teeth, and often spouting fire.
2. Archaic. a huge serpent or snake.
3. Bible. a large animal, possibly a large snake or crocodile.
4. the dragon, Satan.
5. a fierce, violent person.
6. a very watchful and strict woman.
7. flying dragon.
8. Botany. any of several araceous plants, as Arisaema dracontium (green dragon or dragonroot), the flowers of which have a long, slender spadix and a green, shorter spathe.
9. a short musket carried by a mounted infantryman in the 16th and 17th centuries.
10. a soldier armed with such a musket.
11. (initial capital letter) Astronomy. the constellation Draco. "


Now, imagine yourself reading a document in the future when English is a long-dead language, and seeing the word "dragon".

((I got such a kick reading some of the older arguments, lol. And the first post where I read the quote in my signature... *sniffle* Such good memories!))

Edit: Very stupid typo, haha.
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (WraithGod @ Apr 21 2008, 01:29 AM) *
They need to look over the classification of dinosaurs again. However closely related they were to crocs, there's overwhelming evidence that they were warm-blooded, and exothermy is a defining characteristic of the Reptile class.

Anyways. You still haven't addressed any of my points about the physiology of dragons, so let me dig them up again. Maybe you'll have actually done some research by now, hmm? Funny how people pick your arguments apart one by one but you can't bother to even try.

If it encourages you at all, I'm able myself to come up with counters for each of my points, but I'm not about to play Devil's Advocate on your behalf. Though I've got counters for those too.

A nice little collection:



About the third repost of this, I believe. As for the word thing, here are the definitions from English alone. Imagine whart crossing the language barrier could bring about.



Now, imagine yourself reading a document in the future when English is a long-dead language, and seeing the word "dragon".

((I got such a kick reading some of the older arguments, lol. And the first post where I read the quote in my signature... *sniffle* Such food memories!))


Even some species of snakes, not even archossaurs practice some elements of endothermy to brood their eggs. What makes a reptile a reptile is based mostly on their skeletons. Your notion that a crocodile should be a reptile even though it is technically far more closely related to a bird smacks simply of prejudice and has nothing to do with science. I agree though, that the classification is wrong to simply group crocs as reptiles and not categorize them with birds as archosaurs.

As for six limbs, I DID STATE in past threads that dragons may have only had four limbs as many medieval dragons are depicted (Wyrvyns)and the six limb style may have simply been poor rendtions in earlier art. Likewise, a type of flapping wing could have eventually evolved from 'rib wings' controlled by chest muscles. Evoution has wrought stranger things, and from the beginning I have always stated the dragons could only exist if there is any truth to a supernatural/intelligent creator entity. Most of the earliest dragon legends (and they are the most important for this study), do link dragons to gods and the supernatural.

Now if you believe any sort of 'god'/intelligent entity behind the univers is nonsense, then it is pointless to debate this. But there are many scientists who believe there are truths in the bible (including one of your favorites), and that we are not here because of an accidental mixture of the right chemicals at the right temperatures.

So I will say it again since your reading of my posts is very selective. If there is no god/creator/intelligence behind the universe, then the 'intelligent' dragons of 5000 recorded years of human belief actually acannot exist. But if there is "a god", then an excellent argument that explains all the legends, and even cryptic creatures can be developed. And I KNOW it is an excellent argument, becasue a number of very intelligent and knowledgeable people have already read much of my manuscript, and agree that it makes a lot of sense. I am going to send a certain "God-believing" paleontologist a copy of the book gratis, and if he likes it, may ask for a forward in a later edition.
WraithGod
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 08:25 AM) *
Even some species of snakes, not even archossaurs practice some elements of endothermy to brood their eggs. What makes a reptile a reptile is based mostly on their skeletons. Your notion that a crocodile should be a reptile even though it is technically far more closely related to a bird smacks simply of prejudice and has nothing to do with science. I agree though, that the classification is wrong to simply group crocs as reptiles and not categorize them with birds as archosaurs.

As for six limbs, I DID STATE in past threads that dragons may have only had four limbs as many medieval dragons are depicted (Wyrvyns)and the six limb style may have simply been poor rendtions in earlier art. Likewise, a type of flapping wing could have eventually evolved from 'rib wings' controlled by chest muscles. Evoution has wrought stranger things, and from the beginning I have always stated the dragons could only exist if there is any truth to a supernatural/intelligent creator entity. Most of the earliest dragon legends (and they are the most important for this study), do link dragons to gods and the supernatural.

Now if you believe any sort of 'god'/intelligent entity behind the univers is nonsense, then it is pointless to debate this. But there are many scientists who believe there are truths in the bible (including one of your favorites), and that we are not here because of an accidental mixture of the right chemicals at the right temperatures.

So I will say it again since your reading of my posts is very selective. If there is no god/creator/intelligence behind the universe, then the 'intelligent' dragons of 5000 recorded years of human belief actually acannot exist. But if there is "a god", then an excellent argument that explains all the legends, and even cryptic creatures can be developed. And I KNOW it is an excellent argument, becasue a number of very intelligent and knowledgeable people have already read much of my manuscript, and agree that it makes a lot of sense. I am going to send a certain "God-believing" paleontologist a copy of the book gratis, and if he likes it, may ask for a forward in a later edition.


OK, so you're changing your mind on the appearance of these dragons? If you do not even know what they are, how can you argue so fiercely for their specific, actual, non-figurative existance? (I'm seriously asking these questions, just fyi.)

As for the crocs and reptiles thing, if you put a croc in Antarctica it's going to die a hell of a lot faster than a bird. Same with any snake. There is no prejudice about it; intelligent and closely-related to birds through crocs may be, they could not be classified as birds under the current terms. I never said they should be thrown into reptiles either, though. As I said earlier, I believe that major reclassification needs to be done in terms of tbirds, reptiles, and archosaurs, but here is not the place to get into that.

I will continue to disagree with you on the ribs theory, as there would have to be an amazing line of missing links in order to get them to the level you describe dragons as, as well as the fact that though arms make for excellent wing bases, ribs do not have the structure or musculature in place for natural selection to do what it did with birds, bats, and pterosaurs. As with the Discovery Channel's attempts, plausible, but not possible.

And now, to skip the physiological elements, these creatures are, as you admit, impossible without a sentient higher power creating them, therefore taking them out of the realm of the realistic and theoretical and throwing them into the mythical and speculative. If you're using that argument, you can use it to fall back on anything, and I do find that ridiculous.

Good luck sending Bakker the book and getting anything more than an "Interesting." response from him. Bakker may be a theist, but he also places huge emphasis on physical possibility and the evolutionary path of creatures.

I am more than willing to accept that large reptiles were worshipped in Christianity, and that some of the religious figures today were in the past depicted as such. But if you're going to argue for the actual, physical existence of dragons using, "Some god-figure made them", then they do not have to conform to natural limits and anything in your imagination is possible, making this a completely useless argument from a practical point of view. They are, essentially, no more existent than angels from that perspective.

What bothers me the most about this is that whether or not someone is a theist should never have any bearing on their debate or work, and when it comes to science, the assumption is that you do not let belief in God subsitute a scientific explanation. This is what you have done here, and it's extremely disappointing.
Undeadskeptic
My 8 year old cousin got a good laugh reading this thread laugh.gif

He doesn't believe in dragons, but thinks that they were based on lizards/other reptiles exploded to huge proportions to amke them seem more threatening.

This kids just 8. Woah.
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (WraithGod @ Apr 21 2008, 01:50 PM) *
OK, so you're changing your mind on the appearance of these dragons? If you do not even know what they are, how can you argue so fiercely for their specific, actual, non-figurative existance? (I'm seriously asking these questions, just fyi.)

As for the crocs and reptiles thing, if you put a croc in Antarctica it's going to die a hell of a lot faster than a bird. Same with any snake. There is no prejudice about it; intelligent and closely-related to birds through crocs may be, they could not be classified as birds under the current terms. I never said they should be thrown into reptiles either, though. As I said earlier, I believe that major reclassification needs to be done in terms of tbirds, reptiles, and archosaurs, but here is not the place to get into that.

I will continue to disagree with you on the ribs theory, as there would have to be an amazing line of missing links in order to get them to the level you describe dragons as, as well as the fact that though arms make for excellent wing bases, ribs do not have the structure or musculature in place for natural selection to do what it did with birds, bats, and pterosaurs. As with the Discovery Channel's attempts, plausible, but not possible.

And now, to skip the physiological elements, these creatures are, as you admit, impossible without a sentient higher power creating them, therefore taking them out of the realm of the realistic and theoretical and throwing them into the mythical and speculative. If you're using that argument, you can use it to fall back on anything, and I do find that ridiculous.

Good luck sending Bakker the book and getting anything more than an "Interesting." response from him. Bakker may be a theist, but he also places huge emphasis on physical possibility and the evolutionary path of creatures.

I am more than willing to accept that large reptiles were worshipped in Christianity, and that some of the religious figures today were in the past depicted as such. But if you're going to argue for the actual, physical existence of dragons using, "Some god-figure made them", then they do not have to conform to natural limits and anything in your imagination is possible, making this a completely useless argument from a practical point of view. They are, essentially, no more existent than angels from that perspective.

What bothers me the most about this is that whether or not someone is a theist should never have any bearing on their debate or work, and when it comes to science, the assumption is that you do not let belief in God subsitute a scientific explanation. This is what you have done here, and it's extremely disappointing.


I have never 'changed my mind' on the appearance of dragons, until I actually see one, I can only speculate, and draw on the ancient descriptions.

I don't believe dragons were created out of then air. They were probably slightly modified natural creatures much as we human are a slightly improved, more sentient version of the Chimpanzee who shares most of our DNA. There are many educated people who believe the difference between Chimps and Man may be due to either a diety or aliens, and similarly, the creatures we call dragons may have a similar modification.

Actually, angels are simply humans in the Old Testament. They must eat food, and are not all-powerful. A mere human can defeat one in a wrestling match according to the Bilble. Angels were later embellished to become super human winged deities, largely due to the misunderstanding about the winged seraphim 'dragons'.

People who have read the manuscript are quite satisfied with the 'science', as well as the historical timeline. They have not been 'dsappointed'. Virtually every time you discuss this, you reveal yet another gross misunderstanding. If the dragons did exist, as our ancestors said they did, they had to have been 'controlled' by a higher power, or we would probably still be their 'cattle', as the followers of Yahweh seem to have literally been.

draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Undeadskeptic @ Apr 21 2008, 05:16 PM) *
My 8 year old cousin got a good laugh reading this thread laugh.gif

He doesn't believe in dragons, but thinks that they were based on lizards/other reptiles exploded to huge proportions to amke them seem more threatening.

This kids just 8. Woah.


I am not sure what your point is. I probably believed the same thing before I became interested in archaeology and comparitive religion. Obviously he has no idea (like many of the adults here), that the dragons were not considered 'threatening monsters' in the original stories, but as beneficient gods, who the people believed brought them knowledge and technologies. Now if you told him that, he might be a bit confused, because it is fairly inexplicable that people would believe a giant reptile would not be a carnivorous monster, but a wise, and beneificient god.

I am not sure if you are any less naive than the eight year old, despite all of your time on these dragon threads. The more knowledgable one becomes on this subject, the more questions arise that cannot be easily explained away.
Dragon Seeker
QUOTE (WraithGod @ Apr 21 2008, 07:50 PM) *
OK, so you're changing your mind on the appearance of these dragons? If you do not even know what they are, how can you argue so fiercely for their specific, actual, non-figurative existance? (I'm seriously asking these questions, just fyi.)

As for the crocs and reptiles thing, if you put a croc in Antarctica it's going to die a hell of a lot faster than a bird. Same with any snake. There is no prejudice about it; intelligent and closely-related to birds through crocs may be, they could not be classified as birds under the current terms. I never said they should be thrown into reptiles either, though. As I said earlier, I believe that major reclassification needs to be done in terms of tbirds, reptiles, and archosaurs, but here is not the place to get into that.

I will continue to disagree with you on the ribs theory, as there would have to be an amazing line of missing links in order to get them to the level you describe dragons as, as well as the fact that though arms make for excellent wing bases, ribs do not have the structure or musculature in place for natural selection to do what it did with birds, bats, and pterosaurs. As with the Discovery Channel's attempts, plausible, but not possible.

And now, to skip the physiological elements, these creatures are, as you admit, impossible without a sentient higher power creating them, therefore taking them out of the realm of the realistic and theoretical and throwing them into the mythical and speculative. If you're using that argument, you can use it to fall back on anything, and I do find that ridiculous.

Good luck sending Bakker the book and getting anything more than an "Interesting." response from him. Bakker may be a theist, but he also places huge emphasis on physical possibility and the evolutionary path of creatures.

I am more than willing to accept that large reptiles were worshipped in Christianity, and that some of the religious figures today were in the past depicted as such. But if you're going to argue for the actual, physical existence of dragons using, "Some god-figure made them", then they do not have to conform to natural limits and anything in your imagination is possible, making this a completely useless argument from a practical point of view. They are, essentially, no more existent than angels from that perspective.

What bothers me the most about this is that whether or not someone is a theist should never have any bearing on their debate or work, and when it comes to science, the assumption is that you do not let belief in God subsitute a scientific explanation. This is what you have done here, and it's extremely disappointing.


You know i knew there was a reason i was liking you and now i know why thumbsup.gif


QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 11:43 PM) *
I have never 'changed my mind' on the appearance of dragons, until I actually see one, I can only speculate, and draw on the ancient descriptions.

I don't believe dragons were created out of then air. They were probably slightly modified natural creatures much as we human are a slightly improved, more sentient version of the Chimpanzee who shares most of our DNA. There are many educated people who believe the difference between Chimps and Man may be due to either a diety or aliens, and similarly, the creatures we call dragons may have a similar modification.

Actually, angels are simply humans in the Old Testament. They must eat food, and are not all-powerful. A mere human can defeat one in a wrestling match according to the Bilble. Angels were later embellished to become super human winged deities, largely due to the misunderstanding about the winged seraphim 'dragons'.

People who have read the manuscript are quite satisfied with the 'science', as well as the historical timeline. They have not been 'dsappointed'. Virtually every time you discuss this, you reveal yet another gross misunderstanding. If the dragons did exist, as our ancestors said they did, they had to have been 'controlled' by a higher power, or we would probably still be their 'cattle', as the followers of Yahweh seem to have literally been.


DC i dout they were controlled by this "higher power" you speak of, with them being as intelligent as you claim they would clearly be the top preditor, yes our ancestors say they exsisted and i think that they did the thing is and heres the differance between you and i DC, i think that today they are no longer alive, which is why we cannot pick up them on a satlite, and personally there is too much evidance pointing to that they dont exsist in today's times, however i am dead shure that if some people looked hard enough they would find the bones of a dragon, and the reason we may have not found them before? there is always the possiblity that they are buryed deep in the earth and when it shifts (aka we have earthquakes) it may be buring deeper and deeper in the ground but i am dead shure that if we actually bothered looking for it (not just via internet but as a palientiologist [sorry if i misspelled the word] would search for dinosaur bones) we'd proably find tones of evidance that they exsited today (and i've sorta given up on the whole "brining back the dragons" thing that was just plain stupid)
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Dragon Seeker @ Apr 21 2008, 05:59 PM) *
You know i knew there was a reason i was liking you and now i know why thumbsup.gif




DC i dout they were controlled by this "higher power" you speak of, with them being as intelligent as you claim they would clearly be the top preditor, yes our ancestors say they exsisted and i think that they did the thing is and heres the differance between you and i DC, i think that today they are no longer alive, which is why we cannot pick up them on a satlite, and personally there is too much evidance pointing to that they dont exsist in today's times, however i am dead shure that if some people looked hard enough they would find the bones of a dragon, and the reason we may have not found them before? there is always the possiblity that they are buryed deep in the earth and when it shifts (aka we have earthquakes) it may be buring deeper and deeper in the ground but i am dead shure that if we actually bothered looking for it (not just via internet but as a palientiologist [sorry if i misspelled the word] would search for dinosaur bones) we'd proably find tones of evidance that they exsited today (and i've sorta given up on the whole "brining back the dragons" thing that was just plain stupid)


My observations are based on what the ancient human cultures all over the world actually believed. That they WERE intelligent, and that they were their gods, or assitants to the gods. Based on this premise, it is unlikely any human ever killed one, and that the best explanation of elusive giant reptilian cryptids today are that they are the same dragons that our ancestors reported. And it is becasue they are intelligent that all efforts to capture them has failed.

If humans killed them as you imagine, their remains would have been found in the archaeological record. I believe it is ridiculous to think man with his primitive weapons of the past could do this. And if not controlled by a creator diety, they could have wiped out mankind with impunity.

As far as satellites, they could not see a dragon in the dark.
dragons would also have "stealth technology" being made of flesch an not metal and would not be detected by radar. And there are a number of daylight sightings of so-called giant pterodactyls and thunderbirds that could be dragons. Why were no photos taken? Because the satellites only pass over at certain times. Dragons may even be able to see them. I imagine dragons only fly at daylight hours due to extreme neccessity.
Moro
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 07:38 PM) *
My observations are based on what the ancient human cultures all over the world actually believed. That they WERE intelligent, and that they were their gods, or assitants to the gods. Based on this premise, it is unlikely any human ever killed one, and that the best explanation of elusive giant reptilian cryptids today are that they are the same dragons that our ancestors reported. And it is becasue they are intelligent that all efforts to capture them has failed.

If humans killed them as you imagine, their remains would have been found in the archaeological record. I believe it is ridiculous to think man with his primitive weapons of the past could do this. And if not controlled by a creator diety, they could have wiped out mankind with impunity.

As far as satellites, they could not see a dragon in the dark.
dragons would also have "stealth technology" being made of flesch an not metal and would not be detected by radar. And there are a number of daylight sightings of so-called giant pterodactyls and thunderbirds that could be dragons. Why were no photos taken? Because the satellites only pass over at certain times. Dragons may even be able to see them. I imagine dragons only fly at daylight hours due to extreme neccessity.

WRONG. If a big dragon is flying through the air it can be detected by radar night or day.
Lady Otterwynnd
QUOTE (Moro Bumbleroot @ Apr 21 2008, 04:42 PM) *
WRONG. If a big dragon is flying through the air it can be detected by radar night or day.

Yep, the government would be all over it as well as airports. Unless dragons can sense radar.... rolleyes.gif
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Moro Bumbleroot @ Apr 21 2008, 06:42 PM) *
WRONG. If a big dragon is flying through the air it can be detected by radar night or day.


Here's a revelation. The entire world is not under radar surveillance. Most radars are set to specific air lanes or defensive zones. MOST of the sky is NOT under radar surveillance, and I believe the skin of a dragon would be similar to the stealth technology of eqaully LARGE aircraft.
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 21 2008, 07:51 PM) *
Yep, the government would be all over it as well as airports. Unless dragons can sense radar.... rolleyes.gif


Mayb not sense radar, but they could definately sense places where radar is used, like well traveled air routes, and avoid them. But every now and then pilots to report giant flying animals. It is a fact.
Lady Otterwynnd
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 05:56 PM) *
Here's a revelation. The entire world is not under radar surveillance. Most radars are set to specific air lanes or defensive zones. MOST of the sky is NOT under radar surveillance, and I believe the skin of a dragon would be similar to the stealth technology of eqaully LARGE aircraft.

Uh-huh...... So dragons only live in the most remote of areas in the world which are slowly becoming not-so remote? How could scales be like the reflective surface of stealth aircraft? Scales aren't anything like stealth aircraft coverings at all.
Here's wikipedia's definition of stealth aircraft, because apparently it's an incredibly reliable source that anyone can use now:
"A stealth aircraft is an aircraft that uses stealth technology to make it harder to be detected by radar and other means than conventional aircraft by employing a combination of features to reduce visibility in the visual, audio, infrared and radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Well known examples include the United States' F-117 Nighthawk (1980s-2008) and the modern F-22 Raptor fighter.[1]
While no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft effectively limit current conventional radar's abilities to detect or track them effectively enough to prevent an attack. Stealth is accomplished by using a complex design philosophy to reduce the ability of an opponent's sensors to detect, track and attack an aircraft.[2]
Modern stealth aircraft first became possible when a mathematician working for Lockheed Aircraft during the 1970s adopted a mathematical model developed by Pyotr Ufimtsev, a Russian scientist to develop a computer program called Echo 1. Echo made it possible to predict the radar signature an aircraft made with flat panels, called facets. In 1975, engineers at Lockheed Skunk Works found that an airplane made with faceted surfaces could have a very low radar signature because the surfaces would radiate almost all of the radar energy away from the receiver. Lockheed built a model called "the Hopeless Diamond". It was named that because it looked like a squat diamond and looked too hopeless to ever fly. For the first time, designers realized that it might be possible to make an aircraft that was virtually invisible to radar.[3]
Reduced radar cross section is only one of five factors that designers addressed to create a truly stealthy design such as the F-22. The F-22 has also been designed to disguise its infrared emissions to make it harder to detect by infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Designers also addressed making the aircraft less visible to the naked eye, controlling radio transmissions, and noise abatement.[1]
The first combat use of stealth aircraft was in December 1989 during Operation Just Cause in Panama. On December 20th 1989 two USAF F-117s bombed a Panamanian defense Force Barracks in Rio Hato, Panama. In 1991, F-117s were tasked with attacking the most heavily fortified targets in Iraq and were the only jets allowed to operate inside Baghdad's city limits.[4]"

"Sensitive Skin
The B-2 Stealth Bomber has a skin made with highly specialized thermoplastics and composites which make are radar-absorbent. A 1997 report by the US Congress' General Accounting Office found that these materials however are susceptible to damage from extreme temperatures, rain and moisture.[6]"

I'm pretty sure dragons don't have this kind of radar absorbing skin that's been created by man.

QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 05:58 PM) *
Mayb not sense radar, but they could definately sense places where radar is used, like well traveled air routes, and avoid them. But every now and then pilots to report giant flying animals. It is a fact.

Like who? Verifiable sources please, otherwise what you say is just a claim.
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 21 2008, 08:05 PM) *
Uh-huh...... So dragons only live in the most remote of areas in the world which are slowly becoming not-so remote? How could scales be like the reflective surface of stealth aircraft? Scales aren't anything like stealth aircraft coverings at all.
Here's wikipedia's definition of stealth aircraft, because apparently it's an incredibly reliable source that anyone can use now:
"A stealth aircraft is an aircraft that uses stealth technology to make it harder to be detected by radar and other means than conventional aircraft by employing a combination of features to reduce visibility in the visual, audio, infrared and radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Well known examples include the United States' F-117 Nighthawk (1980s-2008) and the modern F-22 Raptor fighter.[1]
While no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft effectively limit current conventional radar's abilities to detect or track them effectively enough to prevent an attack. Stealth is accomplished by using a complex design philosophy to reduce the ability of an opponent's sensors to detect, track and attack an aircraft.[2]
Modern stealth aircraft first became possible when a mathematician working for Lockheed Aircraft during the 1970s adopted a mathematical model developed by Pyotr Ufimtsev, a Russian scientist to develop a computer program called Echo 1. Echo made it possible to predict the radar signature an aircraft made with flat panels, called facets. In 1975, engineers at Lockheed Skunk Works found that an airplane made with faceted surfaces could have a very low radar signature because the surfaces would radiate almost all of the radar energy away from the receiver. Lockheed built a model called "the Hopeless Diamond". It was named that because it looked like a squat diamond and looked too hopeless to ever fly. For the first time, designers realized that it might be possible to make an aircraft that was virtually invisible to radar.[3]
Reduced radar cross section is only one of five factors that designers addressed to create a truly stealthy design such as the F-22. The F-22 has also been designed to disguise its infrared emissions to make it harder to detect by infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Designers also addressed making the aircraft less visible to the naked eye, controlling radio transmissions, and noise abatement.[1]
The first combat use of stealth aircraft was in December 1989 during Operation Just Cause in Panama. On December 20th 1989 two USAF F-117s bombed a Panamanian defense Force Barracks in Rio Hato, Panama. In 1991, F-117s were tasked with attacking the most heavily fortified targets in Iraq and were the only jets allowed to operate inside Baghdad's city limits.[4]"

"Sensitive Skin
The B-2 Stealth Bomber has a skin made with highly specialized thermoplastics and composites which make are radar-absorbent. A 1997 report by the US Congress' General Accounting Office found that these materials however are susceptible to damage from extreme temperatures, rain and moisture.[6]"

I'm pretty sure dragons don't have this kind of radar absorbing skin that's been created by man.


Like who? Verifiable sources please, otherwise what you say is just a claim.


Actually overlapping scales would be very much like a 'faceted jewel" and therfore be an excellent candidate for stealth ability. I doubt dragons fly much anymore, and most sightings today are in deep lakes or the oceanwhere the creatures can easily retreat.

There are numerous accounts of giant flying creatures in modern times, here are a few in a wiki article:
20th century
There have also been Thunderbird sightings more recently. In the 1960s and 1970s, sightings of a large bird the size of a Piper Cub airplane were made in Washington, Utah, and Idaho.[citation needed] On occasion, such reports were accompanied by large footprints or other purported evidence.

Among the most controversial reports is a July 25, 1977 account from Lawndale, Illinois. About 9 p.m. a group of three boys were at play in a residential back yard. Two large birds approached, and chased the boys. Two escaped unharmed, but the third boy, ten-year-old Marlon Lowe, did not. One of the birds reportedly clamped his shoulder with its claws, then lifted Lowe about two feet off the ground, carrying him some distance. Lowe fought against the bird, which released him.

Viewed by some as a tall tale, the descriptions given by the witnesses of these birds match that of an Andean condor: a large black bird, with a white ringed neck and a wingspan up to 10 feet.[4] Loren Coleman and his brother, Jerry, interviewed several witnesses after the reported event.


[edit] 21st century
The thunderbirds of today are not the thunderbirds of the past; they are often bigger, scarier and more elusive. In 2002, a sighting of a large birdlike creature, roughly as big as a Cessna aircraft, was reported in Alaska.[3] Scientists suggested the giant bird may have simply been a Steller's Sea-Eagle. But Cessna aircraft have the wingspan of 30+ feet, while the Stellar's Sea Eagle has a wingspan of 6-8 feet.

In 2004, a high-school student claimed to have been walking into his classroom from a soccer field in Southern California when a large bird-like creature, silhouetted against the sky, was sighted flying over suburban residences. According to him, it first appeared to be a small bird located by the field below. He claimed to have seen it fly over a thunderhead cloud that was over a group of hills to the south that was approximately one and a half miles from where he was standing. The boy claimed that from his point of view it looked the size that a crow-sized bird would at twenty feet away.[citation needed]

Ohio is a prime area for Thunderbird sightings; one was documented in the fall of 2004. Ohio Valley thunderbirds are said to be similar to the California Condor.[citation needed]


[edit] Analysis

Lady Otterwynnd
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 06:23 PM) *
Actually overlapping scales would be very much like a 'faceted jewel" and therfore be an excellent candidate for stealth ability. I doubt dragons fly much anymore, and most sightings today are in deep lakes or the oceanwhere the creatures can easily retreat.

There are numerous accounts of giant flying creatures in modern times, here are a few in a wiki article:
20th century
There have also been Thunderbird sightings more recently. In the 1960s and 1970s, sightings of a large bird the size of a Piper Cub airplane were made in Washington, Utah, and Idaho.[citation needed] On occasion, such reports were accompanied by large footprints or other purported evidence.

Among the most controversial reports is a July 25, 1977 account from Lawndale, Illinois. About 9 p.m. a group of three boys were at play in a residential back yard. Two large birds approached, and chased the boys. Two escaped unharmed, but the third boy, ten-year-old Marlon Lowe, did not. One of the birds reportedly clamped his shoulder with its claws, then lifted Lowe about two feet off the ground, carrying him some distance. Lowe fought against the bird, which released him.

Viewed by some as a tall tale, the descriptions given by the witnesses of these birds match that of an Andean condor: a large black bird, with a white ringed neck and a wingspan up to 10 feet.[4] Loren Coleman and his brother, Jerry, interviewed several witnesses after the reported event.


[edit] 21st century
The thunderbirds of today are not the thunderbirds of the past; they are often bigger, scarier and more elusive. In 2002, a sighting of a large birdlike creature, roughly as big as a Cessna aircraft, was reported in Alaska.[3] Scientists suggested the giant bird may have simply been a Steller's Sea-Eagle. But Cessna aircraft have the wingspan of 30+ feet, while the Stellar's Sea Eagle has a wingspan of 6-8 feet.

In 2004, a high-school student claimed to have been walking into his classroom from a soccer field in Southern California when a large bird-like creature, silhouetted against the sky, was sighted flying over suburban residences. According to him, it first appeared to be a small bird located by the field below. He claimed to have seen it fly over a thunderhead cloud that was over a group of hills to the south that was approximately one and a half miles from where he was standing. The boy claimed that from his point of view it looked the size that a crow-sized bird would at twenty feet away.[citation needed]

Ohio is a prime area for Thunderbird sightings; one was documented in the fall of 2004. Ohio Valley thunderbirds are said to be similar to the California Condor.[citation needed]


[edit] Analysis

One problem: these are BIRD sightings, not dragons. These people obviously know the difference between a bird and a flying lizard. Nowhere in these reports do the witnesses claim that the creatures are draconic. Eyewitness sightings are incredibly unreliable, btw, especially when there are no landmarks to judge size by. These sightings could very well have been over exaggerated or merely misidentified. Just because someone claims to have seen something doesn't mean that's what they actually saw. I saw a show on the History channel (Monster Quest) where they did a show on the thunderbirds. They did an experiment where they made a kite of a silhouette of a large bird (approx. 20 feet wide) and they did a test to see how big this kite appeared to random people they interviewed. Most people said the kite was FAR bigger than it actually was, which means that people are prone to overreacting and overdramatizing what they've seen. It's just human nature.
Incorrigible1
Deleted. Sorry 'bout that.
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 21 2008, 08:29 PM) *
One problem: these are BIRD sightings, not dragons. These people obviously know the difference between a bird and a flying lizard. Nowhere in these reports do the witnesses claim that the creatures are draconic. Eyewitness sightings are incredibly unreliable, btw, especially when there are no landmarks to judge size by. These sightings could very well have been over exaggerated or merely misidentified. Just because someone claims to have seen something doesn't mean that's what they actually saw. I saw a show on the History channel (Monster Quest) where they did a show on the thunderbirds. They did an experiment where they made a kite of a silhouette of a large bird (approx. 20 feet wide) and they did a test to see how big this kite appeared to random people they interviewed. Most people said the kite was FAR bigger than it actually was, which means that people are prone to overreacting and overdramatizing what they've seen. It's just human nature.


Some seem to be birds, but the descriptions are not that detailed. Actually many of the Texas sightings are described more like reptiles.
Lady Otterwynnd
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 06:47 PM) *
Some seem to be birds, but the descriptions are not that detailed. Actually many of the Texas sightings are described more like reptiles.

Again, sources? Don't just say "Oh, some of them say such-and-such" without giving some verifiable source of your information. I've NEVER heard of any of these sightings being related to dragons or reptiles in any way.
WraithGod
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 21 2008, 09:49 PM) *
Again, sources? Don't just say "Oh, some of them say such-and-such" without giving some verifiable source of your information. I've NEVER heard of any of these sightings being related to dragons or reptiles in any way.


Not to put words in DC's mouth, but he's said before that he attributes sightings of reptilian/avian cryptids to being dragons - so, for example, Nessie is actually a dragon, so are supposed pterosaurs. Also, he has not yet given a source for specific "dragon" sightings, so I'll add my support to that request.
WraithGod
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 09:47 PM) *
Some seem to be birds, but the descriptions are not that detailed. Actually many of the Texas sightings are described more like reptiles.


Uhm, Texas actually isn't remote and off the radar net. Not to mention they'd have to deal with Norad as well. If these dragons are staying so far out of the way that they can't be detected by radar, then how come they're responsible for thousands of persons missing worldwide, as you have so emphatically claimed in the past?

Also, a biological covering that makes them undetectable by radar? Wee bit of a stretch. I'll even go so far as to say it's impossible, given the specific shape and structure of stealth aircraft and the fact that it would take intentional design to get them as such. And I'm sorry, but I will not explain "God makes it so" or "It's magic" as plausible explanations, and no respected member of the scientific community would either.
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (WraithGod @ Apr 21 2008, 09:11 PM) *
Not to put words in DC's mouth, but he's said before that he attributes sightings of reptilian/avian cryptids to being dragons - so, for example, Nessie is actually a dragon, so are supposed pterosaurs. Also, he has not yet given a source for specific "dragon" sightings, so I'll add my support to that request.


If the sightings are authentic, dragons are clearly the most logical creature becasue any 'natural' enormous animal would not escape detection. Only a creature of great intelligence could elude modern man, and throughout history, only dragons were considered to have equal or superior intelligence to man.

And who today would admit seeing a dragon? Calling it anything but a dragon is to be expected, but most lake monsters do possess a dragon like form of a long, serpentine neck attached to a thicker body.

For centuries Nessie was considered a dragon, or at least, the creature in the Columba account. By the time Nessie reappeared in the 1930's, the plesiosaur had been discovered, so no one would call it a dragon for this would bring ridicule.
WraithGod
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 10:22 PM) *
If the sightings are authentic, dragons are clearly the most logical creature becasue any 'natural' enormous animal would not escape detection. Only a creature of great intelligence could elude modern man, and throughout history, only dragons were considered to have equal or superior intelligence to man.

And who today would admit seeing a dragon? Calling it anything but a dragon is to be expected, but most lake monsters do possess a dragon like form of a long, serpentine neck attached to a thicker body.

For centuries Nessie was considered a dragon, or at least, the creature in the Columba account. By the time Nessie reappeared in the 1930's, the plesiosaur had been discovered, so no one would call it a dragon for this would bring ridicule.


As I've said before, any large reptilian creature can be referred to as a dragon very easily. Dragons, being mythological, are not logical at all as an explanation. Who today would admit to seeing a pterosaur? Or a huge bird? Or any other massive flying creature that has existed at one point? It would take more than great intelligence to deliberately avoid man these days, especially at that size, the fact that they'd have to get together to breed (and probably live in groups, given the fact that intelligence is synonymous with group existence and interaction), and the HUGE metabolic needs they'd have. And creatures intelligent enough to be THAT evasive would screw off to rural Africa, where there is large game to hunt and few humans, not pick off missing persons in North America.

You might as well say they're able to turn invisible. But please don't go there.
Lady Otterwynnd
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 21 2008, 07:22 PM) *
If the sightings are authentic, dragons are clearly the most logical creature becasue any 'natural' enormous animal would not escape detection. Only a creature of great intelligence could elude modern man, and throughout history, only dragons were considered to have equal or superior intelligence to man.

And who today would admit seeing a dragon? Calling it anything but a dragon is to be expected, but most lake monsters do possess a dragon like form of a long, serpentine neck attached to a thicker body.

For centuries Nessie was considered a dragon, or at least, the creature in the Columba account. By the time Nessie reappeared in the 1930's, the plesiosaur had been discovered, so no one would call it a dragon for this would bring ridicule.

Again, SOURCES???? Don't make claims and then ignore requests for the siting of information, DC.
Dragon Seeker
QUOTE (Moro Bumbleroot @ Apr 22 2008, 12:42 AM) *
WRONG. If a big dragon is flying through the air it can be detected by radar night or day.


Or what about a heat sensor? shurly with the ability to breath fire it would get picked up as a hot object on the heat sensor

QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 22 2008, 03:55 AM) *
Again, SOURCES???? Don't make claims and then ignore requests for the siting of information, DC.



again i agree
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Lady Otterwynnd @ Apr 21 2008, 08:49 PM) *
Again, sources? Don't just say "Oh, some of them say such-and-such" without giving some verifiable source of your information. I've NEVER heard of any of these sightings being related to dragons or reptiles in any way.


I am quite amazed you are not familiar with these sightings of giant flying reptiles. Beeow is a link and part of the article.


http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa061702a.htm

Did Pterosaurs Survive Extinction?

Dozens of eyewitness accounts and a few intriguing photographs suggest that this flying monster, thought to have died with the dinosaurs, might still exist. More of this Feature
• Part 2: The photos


Join the Discussion
"The last dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago from a combination of a long and progressive decline in the number of species and a large asteroid or comet that slammed in to the southern half of the gulf of Mexico. That catastrophe gave way to drastic climate change and the eventual domination of mammals and later us. But what if? What if not all of them died out? It's possible that some surviving species later evolved into birds, but what if some other species survived? It's been known to happen with other species thought to be long extinct and later found to be very much alive..."
Respond to this message



Related Resources
• In Search of Living Dinosaurs
• The Giant Thunderbird Returns
• The Creature of the Dump


Elsewhere on the Web
• The Rhamphor-
hynchoid Pterosaur
• On the Trail of the Brontosaurus



They were the largest creatures to ever attain flight. With wingspans reaching nearly 40 feet, pterosaurs ruled the prehistoric skies for over 100 million years, until they died out with the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago.

Or did they?

There have been many modern-day sightings of creatures that by eyewitness description sound like pterosaurs. There are also intriguing rock carvings and even photographs that suggest that this species of amazing flying monsters could have survived extinction, could have soared through the skies of the southwestern United States until very recently, and might still exist in small numbers in remote parts of the world.

Pterosaurs were not dinosaurs, but a family of large flying reptiles ("pterosaur" means "winged lizard") that includes the pterodactyl and pteranodon. The pterosaur stood on two rather spindly legs and had wings composed of a leathery membrane that stretched from the animal's extremely long fourth finger to its body. Despite their appearance, they were not related to birds (as dinosaurs are theorized to be), and were highly successful flyers that might have dined on fish and insects.

Modern Sightings

Although there seems to be no hard evidence that pterosaurs did not die out millions of years ago - no pterosaurs have ever been captured and no bodies have ever been found - sightings have persisted. Stories of flying reptiles have been recorded for many hundreds of years. Some think that tales of the "mythical" dragons in the lore of many cultures around the would could be attributed to the sighting of pterosaurs. Here are some more modern accounts:

May, 1961, New York State - A businessman flying his private plane over the Hudson River Valley claimed that he was "buzzed" by a large flying creature that he said "looked more like a pterodactyl out of the prehistoric ages."

Early 1960s, California - A couple driving through Trinity National Forest reported seeing the silhouette of a giant "bird" that they estimated to have a wingspan of 14 feet. They later described it as resembling a pterodactyl.

January, 1976, Harlingen, Texas - Jackie Davis (14) and Tracey Lawson (11) reported seeing a "bird" on the ground that stood five feet tall, was dark in color with a bald head and a face like a gorilla's with a sharp, six-inch-long beak. A subsequent investigation by their parents uncovered tracks that had three toes and were eight inches across.

February, 1976, San Antonio, Texas - Three elementary school teachers saw what they described as a pterodactyl swooping low over their cars as they drove. They said its wingspan was between 15 and 20 feet. One of the teachers commented that it glided through the air on huge, bony wings - like a bat's.

September, 1982, Los Fresnos, Texas - An ambulance driver named James Thompson was stopped while driving on Highway 100 by his sighting of a "large birdlike object" flying low over the area. He described it as black or grayish with a rough texture, but no feathers. It had a five- to six-foot wingspan, a hump on the back of its head, and almost no neck at all. After consulting some books to identify the creature, he decided it most looked like a pterosaur.

Africa's Kongamato

While other reports of pterosaur-like creatures have come out of Arizona, Mexico and Crete, it is out of central Africa that some of the most interesting anecdotes have come. While traveling though Zambia in 1923, Frank H. Melland collected reports from natives of an aggressive flying reptile they called kongamoto, which means "overwhelmer of boats." The natives, who were occasionally tormented by these creatures, described them as being featherless with smooth skin, having a beak full of teeth and a wingspan of between four and seven feet. When shown illustrations of pterosaurs, Melland reported, "every native present immediately and unhesitatingly picked out and identified it as a kongamato."

In 1925, a native man was allegedly attacked by a creature that he identified as a pterosaur. This occurred near a swamp in Rhodesia (now Zambia) where the man suffered a large wound in his chest that he said was caused by the monster's long beak.

In the late 1980s, noted cryptozoologist Roy Mackal led an expedition into Namibia from which he had heard reports of a prehistoric-looking creature with a wingspan of up to 30 feet
Archosaur
QUOTE (WraithGod @ Apr 21 2008, 10:27 PM) *
As I've said before, any large reptilian creature can be referred to as a dragon very easily. Dragons, being mythological, are not logical at all as an explanation. Who today would admit to seeing a pterosaur? Or a huge bird? Or any other massive flying creature that has existed at one point? It would take more than great intelligence to deliberately avoid man these days, especially at that size, the fact that they'd have to get together to breed (and probably live in groups, given the fact that intelligence is synonymous with group existence and interaction), and the HUGE metabolic needs they'd have. And creatures intelligent enough to be THAT evasive would screw off to rural Africa, where there is large game to hunt and few humans, not pick off missing persons in North America.

You might as well say they're able to turn invisible. But please don't go there.


Wraith, while all known intelligent animals have some social interaction, they do not all live in groups. Solitary hunters in the ocean, such as sperm whales and octopi gather for mating, but usually live a solitary life. On land, the solitary leopard is considered far more intelligent than the social lion. So: living in groups does give an additional reason for intelligence, and social animals are more likely to be intelligent, but it isn't a prerequisite.

That said, if there are intelligent dragons, they must have at least some social interests, as they apparently sought some level of interaction with humans.
Mattshark
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 23 2008, 12:16 AM) *
I am quite amazed you are not familiar with these sightings of giant flying reptiles. Beeow is a link and part of the article.


http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa061702a.htm

Did Pterosaurs Survive Extinction?

Dozens of eyewitness accounts and a few intriguing photographs suggest that this flying monster, thought to have died with the dinosaurs, might still exist. More of this Feature
• Part 2: The photos


Join the Discussion
"The last dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago from a combination of a long and progressive decline in the number of species and a large asteroid or comet that slammed in to the southern half of the gulf of Mexico. That catastrophe gave way to drastic climate change and the eventual domination of mammals and later us. But what if? What if not all of them died out? It's possible that some surviving species later evolved into birds, but what if some other species survived? It's been known to happen with other species thought to be long extinct and later found to be very much alive..."
Respond to this message



Related Resources
• In Search of Living Dinosaurs
• The Giant Thunderbird Returns
• The Creature of the Dump


Elsewhere on the Web
• The Rhamphor-
hynchoid Pterosaur
• On the Trail of the Brontosaurus



They were the largest creatures to ever attain flight. With wingspans reaching nearly 40 feet, pterosaurs ruled the prehistoric skies for over 100 million years, until they died out with the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago.

Or did they?

There have been many modern-day sightings of creatures that by eyewitness description sound like pterosaurs. There are also intriguing rock carvings and even photographs that suggest that this species of amazing flying monsters could have survived extinction, could have soared through the skies of the southwestern United States until very recently, and might still exist in small numbers in remote parts of the world.

Pterosaurs were not dinosaurs, but a family of large flying reptiles ("pterosaur" means "winged lizard") that includes the pterodactyl and pteranodon. The pterosaur stood on two rather spindly legs and had wings composed of a leathery membrane that stretched from the animal's extremely long fourth finger to its body. Despite their appearance, they were not related to birds (as dinosaurs are theorized to be), and were highly successful flyers that might have dined on fish and insects.

Modern Sightings

Although there seems to be no hard evidence that pterosaurs did not die out millions of years ago - no pterosaurs have ever been captured and no bodies have ever been found - sightings have persisted. Stories of flying reptiles have been recorded for many hundreds of years. Some think that tales of the "mythical" dragons in the lore of many cultures around the would could be attributed to the sighting of pterosaurs. Here are some more modern accounts:

May, 1961, New York State - A businessman flying his private plane over the Hudson River Valley claimed that he was "buzzed" by a large flying creature that he said "looked more like a pterodactyl out of the prehistoric ages."

Early 1960s, California - A couple driving through Trinity National Forest reported seeing the silhouette of a giant "bird" that they estimated to have a wingspan of 14 feet. They later described it as resembling a pterodactyl.

January, 1976, Harlingen, Texas - Jackie Davis (14) and Tracey Lawson (11) reported seeing a "bird" on the ground that stood five feet tall, was dark in color with a bald head and a face like a gorilla's with a sharp, six-inch-long beak. A subsequent investigation by their parents uncovered tracks that had three toes and were eight inches across.

February, 1976, San Antonio, Texas - Three elementary school teachers saw what they described as a pterodactyl swooping low over their cars as they drove. They said its wingspan was between 15 and 20 feet. One of the teachers commented that it glided through the air on huge, bony wings - like a bat's.

September, 1982, Los Fresnos, Texas - An ambulance driver named James Thompson was stopped while driving on Highway 100 by his sighting of a "large birdlike object" flying low over the area. He described it as black or grayish with a rough texture, but no feathers. It had a five- to six-foot wingspan, a hump on the back of its head, and almost no neck at all. After consulting some books to identify the creature, he decided it most looked like a pterosaur.

Africa's Kongamato

While other reports of pterosaur-like creatures have come out of Arizona, Mexico and Crete, it is out of central Africa that some of the most interesting anecdotes have come. While traveling though Zambia in 1923, Frank H. Melland collected reports from natives of an aggressive flying reptile they called kongamoto, which means "overwhelmer of boats." The natives, who were occasionally tormented by these creatures, described them as being featherless with smooth skin, having a beak full of teeth and a wingspan of between four and seven feet. When shown illustrations of pterosaurs, Melland reported, "every native present immediately and unhesitatingly picked out and identified it as a kongamato."

In 1925, a native man was allegedly attacked by a creature that he identified as a pterosaur. This occurred near a swamp in Rhodesia (now Zambia) where the man suffered a large wound in his chest that he said was caused by the monster's long beak.

In the late 1980s, noted cryptozoologist Roy Mackal led an expedition into Namibia from which he had heard reports of a prehistoric-looking creature with a wingspan of up to 30 feet


All here say and nothing solid. As per usual for such things (not aimed at you DC but the site).
If there where still pterosaurs finding them would not be hugely challenging.
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (Mattshark @ Apr 22 2008, 07:26 PM) *
All here say and nothing solid. As per usual for such things (not aimed at you DC but the site).
If there where still pterosaurs finding them would not be hugely challenging.


EXACTLY . I am glad we agree on something. This is why the must be intelligent dragons and NOT pterosaurs. But becasue of the ridicule people today will always call a dragon a ptersosaur first..
Mattshark
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 23 2008, 01:00 AM) *
EXACTLY . I am glad we agree on something. This is why the must be intelligent dragons and NOT pterosaurs. But becasue of the ridicule people today will always call a dragon a ptersosaur first..

Well almost, I'm of the opinion they misidentified or simply made up what they saw.
theSOURCE
I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone's mentioned this before. What about dragon gills?

It's difficult enough to imagine wings sprouting from ribs that are not appendages similar to all known forms of flying creatures such as birds, bats, pterosaurs, etc., but are powerful enough to lift the weight of a dragon.

But just how, as DC claims, can a dragon remain so long under water unless it had gills with which to breath?

Or does that mean amphibious frogs and salamanders can be considered dragons as well?

The following dragon pics are posted for your viewing pleasure.

linked-image

linked-image



Seriously, dragons have been given way too many abilities to be anything other than fantasy creatures.

draconic chronicler
QUOTE (theSOURCE @ Apr 22 2008, 08:28 PM) *
I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone's mentioned this before. What about dragon gills?

It's difficult enough to imagine wings sprouting from ribs that are not appendages similar to all known forms of flying creatures such as birds, bats, pterosaurs, etc., but are powerful enough to lift the weight of a dragon.

But just how, as DC claims, can a dragon remain so long under water unless it had gills with which to breath?

Or does that mean amphibious frogs and salamanders can be considered dragons as well?

The following dragon pics are posted for your viewing pleasure.

linked-image

linked-imagehttp://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa061702a.htm

Seriously, dragons have been given way too many abilities to be anything other than fantasy creatures.


No Source,
The problem is that virtually no one here is very familiar with th living animals that are similar to dragons.

Crocodilians are archosaurs as dragons certainly would be as well. They can stay under water a very long time without gills, and also can surface and breath completely unnoticed. No less that 15 feet from where i am typing this there is a six foot alligator lying with just his nostrils above the water. I often have to stir his pool because there is no sign of him, and I want to make sure he has'nt escaped his pen.

Nessie, Champ and the rest of the dragons could be just a stealthy. In day time, they need only raise their nostrils above the water to breath and go completely unnoticed.

And no, amphibians are neither archosaurs or dragons.

Dragons have many abilities becasue they are the creator's "watchers" of our planet until the human race was well established.
Dragon Seeker
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 23 2008, 03:24 AM) *
No Source,
The problem is that virtually no one here is very familiar with th living animals that are similar to dragons.

Crocodilians are archosaurs as dragons certainly would be as well. They can stay under water a very long time without gills, and also can surface and breath completely unnoticed. No less that 15 feet from where i am typing this there is a six foot alligator lying with just his nostrils above the water. I often have to stir his pool because there is no sign of him, and I want to make sure he has'nt escaped his pen.

Nessie, Champ and the rest of the dragons could be just a stealthy. In day time, they need only raise their nostrils above the water to breath and go completely unnoticed.

And no, amphibians are neither archosaurs or dragons.

Dragons have many abilities becasue they are the creator's "watchers" of our planet until the human race was well established.



Yes well, i too am glad that we can agree on things here, for i think that the crocidilians could possibly be related to a dragon.

and if there the creator's "watchers" of our planet until the human race is well established, well there going to have to wait another few thoudsand years, but at the rate that we are destroying ourselfs, i'd give us maybe 100 at the most unless we figgure out a soloution to things like global warming. so they may never get the chance to see the human race blossum, and if they do then what will happen if they leave?
Incorrigible1
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 22 2008, 09:24 PM) *
The problem is that virtually no one here is very familiar with th living animals that are similar to dragons.

Funny that should be. Seeing's how dragons have never actually drawn a single breath in the history of the entire world.
theSOURCE
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 22 2008, 08:24 PM) *
No Source,
The problem is that virtually no one here is very familiar with th living animals that are similar to dragons.

Crocodilians are archosaurs as dragons certainly would be as well. They can stay under water a very long time without gills, and also can surface and breath completely unnoticed. No less that 15 feet from where i am typing this there is a six foot alligator lying with just his nostrils above the water. I often have to stir his pool because there is no sign of him, and I want to make sure he has'nt escaped his pen.

Nessie, Champ and the rest of the dragons could be just a stealthy. In day time, they need only raise their nostrils above the water to breath and go completely unnoticed.

And no, amphibians are neither archosaurs or dragons.


But the main thing that flies into the face of this postulation (no pun intended) is that no known archosaurs have the ability to fly. Setting aside the super intelligence and stealth capabilities, what precedent can you provide to show that similar creatures exist? Surely dragons had to have gone through evolution similar to all life on earth. And there must have been an early ancestor that they evolved from.

QUOTE
Dragons have many abilities becasue they are the creator's "watchers" of our planet until the human race was well established.


The problem I have with this is that it relegates dragons to being simply religious icons. If that's the case, then only one's faith can determine if dragons exists, and not any scientific method or observation.






WraithGod
QUOTE (draconic chronicler @ Apr 22 2008, 10:24 PM) *
Crocodilians are archosaurs as dragons certainly would be as well. They can stay under water a very long time without gills, and also can surface and breath completely unnoticed. No less that 15 feet from where i am typing this there is a six foot alligator lying with just his nostrils above the water. I often have to stir his pool because there is no sign of him, and I want to make sure he has'nt escaped his pen.


But crocodiles can't fly, and pterosaurs would undoubtedly have poor underwater abilities. Dinosaurs couldn't fly either, and you can look to seals and sea lions for the best combination of underwater and land movement. These dragons you describe are incredible generalists the likes of which any world would not be able to create. As always, excluding "magic" and influences from "deities", how could a creature of such mass have wings large enough to support flight, yet still allow for effective movement and existence underwater? Plus, they'd still have to maneuver extremely well on land, having the leg strength to push into the air in order to attain flight, or climb to suitable points where they could get into the air faster.
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (theSOURCE @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) *
But the main thing that flies into the face of this postulation (no pun intended) is that no known archosaurs have the ability to fly. Setting aside the super intelligence and stealth capabilities, what precedent can you provide to show that similar creatures exist? Surely dragons had to have gone through evolution similar to all life on earth. And there must have been an early ancestor that they evolved from.



The problem I have with this is that it relegates dragons to being simply religious icons. If that's the case, then only one's faith can determine if dragons exists, and not any scientific method or observation.



Wrong again, Pterosaurs ARE Archosaurs.

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Sauropsida

(unranked) Archosauria

Order: Pterosauria
Kaup, 1834

But I bet you meant dinosaurs. But wait, some people consider birds dinosaurs.

You are wrong about dragons being simply 'religious icons' as well, for there are people who profess NO relgious faith that still believe dragons were, or are real.
draconic chronicler
QUOTE (WraithGod @ Apr 22 2008, 11:27 PM) *
But crocodiles can't fly, and pterosaurs would undoubtedly have poor underwater abilities. Dinosaurs couldn't fly either, and you can look to seals and sea lions for the best combination of underwater and land movement. These dragons you describe are incredible generalists the likes of which any world would not be able to create. As always, excluding "magic" and influences from "deities", how could a creature of such mass have wings large enough to support flight, yet still allow for effective movement and existence underwater? Plus, they'd still have to maneuver extremely well on land, having the leg strength to push into the air in order to attain flight, or climb to suitable points where they could get into the air faster.


Actually, crocodiles perhaps CAN fly. There is still a school of paleontologists who believe birds may have developed from a lithe aboreal crocodilian. Do not think every crocodilian was an aquatic creature. There were tree climbing crocodilians and even bipedal terrestrial crocs, that took over the theropod niche in the post Cretaceous world. So using the model of crocodilians, we can imagine dragons equally as versatile, or probably more so.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.