That is simply your opinion. Billions and billions of humans would disagree with you.

Those crocodilians may be classified as such but as you've said yourself, they were arboreal, not semi-aquatic. Therefore they would not be adept at swimming and remaining in water, if they could swim underwater properly at all with wings. The point is you're saying these dragons are at least semi-aquatic AND can fly. Semi-aquatic crocs do not fly.



I'd stake my liver on the fact that if you conducted such a pole in the Western world, you would be proven wrong. I'd stake my small intestine on having the result replicated if conducted worldwide.

Ah, my bad. I was indeed thinking of land dwelling dinosaurs and sea reptiles.



That's true. However, the point is that birds evolved from dinosaurs into the avian creatures that they are today. What early life form did dragons evolved from?



Now here's where you truly lose me. Who are these non religious people who believe that dragons exist(ed)? I've searched books as well as the net and I've yet to find any accredited persons who believe that dragons are more than fantasy or simple ancient mythology. Do you have any sources?

There was a study done by Ostrom (1973) that concluded the Dromaeosauridae and birds had a lot of similar attributes. The Velociraptor and the Archillobator (for example) may well have had feathers. In fact according to the 2nd edition Dinosauria there have been fossils found of the velociraptor with feather like integumentary.

So the possibility that they may have evolved to fly is not perhaps a ludicrous one. (Nor is it in my opinion likely but we can only work on whats possible and what is not)
The Archillobator, being the size that it was may well have develpoed another method of flying. Thouigh this is just my own hypothesis and not actually one i believe.

Another interesting thing is that Mathew and Brown were the first to discover that the Dromaeosauridae braincase was large. They were not, however the last. Colbert and Russell (1969) and Currie (1995) echoed this point.

i dont think dragons ever existed, nor do i think Nessie or Champ could be dragons. But i do think the dragons physiology at least is possible.

Im not sure how a dragon would be capable of being underwater for such a prolonged period of time, nor do i think Nessie or Champ are anything to doing with the dragons we hear of in legend. No i would say they are just elaborations on tales told a long time ago which of course spiralled out of control to the point in becoming modern myth.

for the most part yeah

also it was already proven that birds evolved mostly from raptors and other dinosaurs not from crocs well only 2 species have from crocs....thats it (please stop thinking you know it all even i admit when im wrong)

yes i do actually thye native american people belived dragons where gods and that the end of the world would happen as a great dragon will awaken from a slumber from under the great turtel (earth note: the story world on a turtles back)

Where do you get this stuff? There ARE aquatic archosaurs that also fly. Try Pelicans and Commorants for starters, and with their wings folded, would look something like a "lake monster".

Wrong, most people in the world profess religiious beliefs, and virtually all of them acknowledge dragons as real creatures.

DC are yu saying more than 50% of peoplei n the world believe dragons exist? That seems a ridiculous statement to me. And is almost certainly not true.

But I wasn't wrong. There are bonafide paleontologists that believe bird origins are still from crocs. Read the literature. There are still with the raptor theory, as these scientists point out.

But neither theory changes the fact dragons are real creatures.

not most just some

Most people do not fully understand their own theologies. It is undeniable however that dragons are mentioned as real creatures in Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Native American religions, and everywhere else. So are only parts of the religions authentic? How can the religion be true if may aspects of it are a lie?

In Chritianity alone, dragons are as real as Jesus. So how can you take the dragons out and leave Jesus in? They are not symbols, they are physical creatures that have been turned into angels by those ignorant of the orignal hebrew scriptures.

thats a lie!!!

dude YOu hAVE NO IDEA WHAT UR SAYING!!

But the abilities a extraordinary long breath holding that crocodilians have are supported by them being ectothermic as is there ability to sit there and do nothing for such a very long time and is the only way to contend with the extremely inconsistent food sources available in cold water lakes especially with the volume of food such a large proposed endotherm would need and an ectothermic reptilian would simply not be able to survive the temperature in the cold cold water lakes.
The other thing, membranous wings and water is an extremely bad combination.
I know you say these animals could just be as stealthy, but any survivalable population would be find in such an isolated habitat and you will have to understand that due to the fact that there is no evidence what so ever of any animal that does not die I feel it is perfectly plausible to rule out such a possibility.
The complete lack of ecological impact that is involved with these creatures to is also further evidence to them not actually being there.

Im afraid i dont believe in Jesus either (not the way is told of in the Bible) though that is a discussion for another day.
yes many religions have dragons in them. But the dragons are so different from one another that they are almost unrelatable. The naga from Bhuddist belief is just a half man half serpent in most depictions. The dragons in Christianity are almost always symbolic of the devil. Take the dragon that St Michael killed. In one sentence it is the dragon and in the next it is a devil. The native american dragons were either ethereal spirits by nature or vivid images. The meso American's had the feathered serpent.

If looking at the facts, it is far more reasonable that these legends are based on snakes and are infact the snake themselves inspiring and becoming deities. As did many other creatures.
In europe the tales probably travelled with the Celts from Mesopotania. In the orient the tales probably travelled from China with the trade and missions.

i half agree with that

Half?

because the devil in the cathloic bible was always the devil he wasnt a dragon and in native american tradition the dragon isnt seen it is felt and was the bringwer of life(aka god)

DC, I suppose there could be a possiblity of a pterosaur type creature surviving into the late neolithic era,
and chalcolithic era 5000/6000 years ago. Quite possibly even into more modern times. If this were to be
the case then, a pterosaur would be a great candidate of what all these ancient people were seeing as well
as wrote about. (And that is ME, stretching the possibility way out there.)

Now when you start telling people that these creatures are unimaginably intelligent and have escaped detection
by adapting to lakes, and possibly remote forests. I am just at a loss for words, and personally, I feel this is
where your theory falls apart.



Regards,
Tom

Now Incorrigible i have to dissagree with that statement, however i respect that is your oppion. I think that dragons at one point in time did exsist however even though they are said to have an unbelieveable life span, i think they have all died out, and people (aka archoligists again sorry if misspelled) simply dont look hard enough for dragon fossils or bones





In truth i half agree with that like weregirl, because not all of the Natives believed in dragons only certain tribes.

Thats not entirely true.

"There was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not. Neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil and satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Book of Revelations)

In native America the dragon wasnt a god, it was a spirit, bear with me i am trying to find sources for that. My knowledge is very limited on the American dragons

I didnt mean all of them, i was talking about generic beliefs from generalised cultures, not specific areas.

This seems a little unfair. Many see dragons as symbolic within their religous texts not as a literal real creature. As to the bold part, this is purely your own opinion not a proven fact. It is unfair to state they believe in dragons based on this concept. If they believe these angels to be angels or symbols or whatever, then THAT is what they believe in, you can't say they believe in dragons if they dont percieve threse as literal dragons themselves. I know many people with religous beliefs that would not consider dragons to be real.

Ouch, I wasn't prepared for a personal attack, that made a lump well up in my throat

I was not trying to make a point. I merely wanted to point out the maturity my young cousin shows. Also I found it humorous as a reflection on what I spend my time doing that a young child laughed at the concepts discussed in these threads, where as I take them seriously. It is as though U-M is its own little world, I am a Skeptic in U-M, but would be considered very open minded in real life for the fact I even consider the possibility of dragons in the first place let alone debate wether they do or do not exist.

Anyway I discussed with him your theories (From a non-biased veiwpoint) and he laughed them off, though he does say he will buy your book when it is released. He asks what its name is, I would be grateful if you told me so I could inform him.

I did not mean my statment as an attack on you, and hope you do not consider me less intelligent than you for not believing in dragons as I would assume we probably share the same IQ level.

Even though and this is only a harmless observation, you usually don't reply to posts like this one, I would like a lot to know the name of your book for my little cousin. He is very much amused, and I think quite a bit intrigued with your ideas.

I would think Yamata-no-Orochi, mentioned in the 19th chapter of the Kojiki would have been considered a 'threatening monster'.

Ah then in which case i agree with you, and also refering to your previous posts i can fully agree

Everyone will know the title in time, don't worry. But I doubt an eight year old will get much out of it because so much of it rests on a knowledge of ancient history and comparitive religion, and even scientific concepts, and an acknowledgement that all of these ancient culutres DID believe in dragons. An eight yer old would not even know many of these cultures even existed.

How can you even disucss this when you don't even know the Christian legends. St Michael NEVER kills a dragon. The dragon is defeated, put in chains and imprisoned. 1000 years later he escapes or is released, causes trouble and is then imprisoned forever in a lake of fire.

In real christianiy there is only one evil dragon in an army of obedient ones. YOu would know this if you rsearched the dragons of Christianity with the detail I have.


This 'bad dragon' story was stolen directly from Persian Zoroastrianism, only the name of the dragon was changed. The Native american dragons were very real. They are reported eating people which makes them physical creatures.

The names feathered serpent could actually mean bird serpent, implying is it not covered in feathers but that it flies like a bird.

One of the earliest identified depictions of a dragon god, is a mushushu dragon which looks startingly like the Welsh dragon, NOT like a snake at all, so your theory of snakes is baseless.

Yes but the ecological impact is based on the notion they are trapped in the loch, and not terrestrial hunters, and possibly even flyers.

And apparently you do not understand the point about the creatures staying underwater. A large creature could be just below the surface with only its nostrils exposed.

But if they can fly how are they trapped in the loch? I don't understand that sentence.

OK, just to demonstrate that, by the laws of nature, dragons would be unable to perform the underwater feats you describe (hopefully everyone can tell what each of these animals is, lol)



A key thing to note is the transition from penguin to bird. Chuck a pigeon or similar bird in water and see how it fares. Trust me, unless they can struggle to shore and get their footing, they'll get exhausted and drown.

Swimming birds are highly specialized - don't take ducks and geese for granted.

Note: A pigeon was in one of the pools I worked at, I didn't throw it in. We fished it out, but it died anyways. RIP, Loch Ness Monster, if you were indeed a dragon.

Fabulous! Between DC's mother, and now your cousin, DC's book sales have doubled!

Come now Wraith, there is a significant difference between highly specialized and impossible according to the laws of nature. Is it unlikely that a creature would evolve both highly specialized swimming and flying apparatus? Yes. Is it impossible biologically? Of course not.

If there are or were dragons (and it's worth considering) they could not have evolved by normal processes here on earth. Either they must come from another environment, or been altered. But that doesn't make them biologically impossible. In fact: I bet that with the human fascination of such creatures, that someone will genetically engineer something like one...

I could design half a dozen dragons that'd be able to run around and fly. But not run around, fly, swim underwater, AND breathe fire. It would be especially difficult given the sheer size of these beasts the the proportionate size of their wings (sparrow and its wings versus swan and its wings).

It IS impossible, and nature actually tells us this in the form of generalists and specialists. You can't be superb at one thing (eg swimming) and superb at a contradictory thing at the same time (eg flying). Ducks are as good as we're going to get. If you can show me a design, I'd really appreciate it, because I've been wracking my brains and the best I can come up with is a small creature that would kinda suck at both. Just think of the DRAG those wings would create and the force needed to overcome it.

Also, and on that note I'd like to amend an earlier statement about ducks/geese etc. being specialized; for their niche they are, but in terms of flying and swimming, they are generalists. They're not incredible swimmers or fliers compared with other creatures who perform this feats.

I never supposed they were trapped in the Loch. This is the belief of sceptics to prove a trapped large monster would not have enough food from just the loch. Though even this is questionable, after seeing night dives with the loch literally swarming with large eels.

Don't forget, you need BILLIONS of religious people to believe (surreptitiously) in them. They're (worshipers) not intelligent enough to make decisions for themselves, as to whether or not they choose to believe in intelligent, cryptid, fantastic dragon creatures, or their own vision of the god they're praying to. One (one only) poster here posts countless pointless threads here insisting intelligent humans don't quite know what it is they're worshipping, that they've been deceived for centuries.

Somebody's a damned fool here, and I'll leave it up to the individual reading this post to decide for themselves just who that damned fool really is.

Okay, I'll agree with your generalist idea of ducks, or better a commorant, since it is a true predator, and state a dragon might be as good a swimmer and flyer as one of those. And perhaps the fire spewing, is done with flammable liqour. So what is so impossible?

Intelligent dragons controlling evolution and development of culture in humans, all the whilst remaining completely cryptid and absolutely no remains nor physical evidence of their existence found?

Sorry guy but I am right. Mainstream christianity has turned the reptilian seraphim into winged humanoid angels that they feel more comfortable with. There can be no doubt what the ancient hebrew word meant, for the ancient Jews themselves translated it to the word Drakon. The ancient papyrus manuscripts cannot lie. The facts all support what I am saying....... get used to it.

If I were to set foot into a Christian church this Sunday, and inquire if they're worshiping intelligent dragon creatures, you're insisting to me they'd respond in the affirmative?

Ducks and cormorants don't go underwater the way a dragon'd need to to fit your theory though, they just paddle on the surface. Assuming you could find a means, like seagulls ducks etc, to keep the wings tucked away and dry, dragons might well be adept on the surface as are a great bumber of reptiles. Assuming. Said dragon would need to lose a great deal of reptilian body shape in return for the round, wide body of a bird though. We're basically looking at a bird with scales and membranous wings now, but how to fold those wings? Bats and pterosaurs can't do it nearly as well as birds, and don't forget the proportionate size matter.

How could I have forgotten loons? They dive and swim underwater, they're not that great at it given their buoyancy, but their body shape is the absolute key. I'm thinking to fold the wings up properly, we'd have to convert to a bird's arm structure rather than a bat or pterosaur structure, and shrink the dragons down from the incredible size we have them at.

I'm seeing a featherless loon, I don't know about you.

The liquor still needs a spark or other chemical that it reacts with to produce flame upon mixing. We need to identify suitable chemicals that are safe for biological storage, or a means of creating a spark about ten feet away from the dragon's snout.

Now now, even I can respond to that. The Christians - parishioners up to the pope - don't know any better because the Bible is badly translated by all scholars worldwide. However, unbeknownst to them, their angels are actually dragons, and possibly their deity as well. So though they are worshipping them, they are unable to say that they because they are unaware of it. =P Is that right?

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Loondragon breathing fire with brain case supporting human-level intelligence! Sorry, no room for forelegs with all the muscle tissue needed to power flight.

Well, at least the loondragon comes with webbed feet for putting out any forest-fires that he might start.

Actually, a swollen brain case may not be necessary for an intelligent large reptile. First, a lesser proportion of the skull would need to be dedicated to cognition in a larger creature. Second, reptiles, and birds, often delegate much of the body motor-control functions to local nerve ganglia, and the spine. These typically are in the brain for mammals, and why even stupid large mammals still need relatively large brain cases.

..... Liquor spewing dragons now??? Fyi, I'm pretty sure there are cultures that didn't offer their mythological beasts liquor or virgin sacrifices. If dragons are so intelligent, why do they need to eat virgins, and couldn't they just make their own alcohol? Why make humans slaves if they're here to help us grow and develop as a species? <--- (assuming for a second that this claim had some shred of truth)


LOL!!!

YOu have it pretty close, except for the fact that the catholic church certainly knows they are dragons. The greatest Chruch leaders confirm this in their writings. There was even a legend of one or more dragons living in the vatican as guests of the Pope that were responsible for the disappearance of hundreds of people. Dragons decorate many public fountains and monuments in the vatican as well. Now you know why.

But no, there are humanoid angels in the scriptures as well, only the winged ones called seraphim (and probably cherubim) are actually dragons.

We don't know if every culture did, but then some dragons many not like alcohol or virigns.. And they don't HAVE to eat virgins, it is just that virgins would be the most precious kind of human offering, just like an unblemished pure white calve is more suitable than a mangy spotted one.

But they would probably taste the same, only the "thought " that counts.

I am sure the humans didn't think they were slaves. They were grateful they had dragon gods to protect them, bring rain, dispense wisdom, etc. The contacts between man and his dragon gods was symbiotic. The humans felt protected, received rain, wisdom, etc, and the dragons received offerings so they didn't have to hunt.

The commorant is a better model, and has a longer neck, a characteritic of both dragons and lake monsters.