i understand all of this better than you think, however, to me it is more logical to create a "monster" from the animals you are most likely to be hunted by. In europe, that would be the wolf, in asia the tiger and the constrictor or (name of venomous snake) large reptiles including the alligator, crocodile and the monitor lizard, in north america the bear, wolf and mountain lion, alligators, in south america, jaguar, caimen, boa, (native venomous snakes), and africa with lions, hyenas, snakes of all kinds. so there are many creatures to use as inspiration, i know you said the same basic thing. my point is, though we fear reptiles, something fierce, we also fear the mammalian predators, so why not base a large fire breathing creature on one of the many mammalian predators that hunted our forebears.

Because reptiles are so intrinsicly different to us, we have forged links with other mammals, we domesticated wolves giving us dogs (despite their later persicution). Reptiles have a different image and the fear may have been an evolutionary one from when humans where only found in areas with crocodiles.

EXACTLY! ITS THE BASIC ANIMAL INSTINCT STILL LINGERING, AND IT STAYED WITH US FOR A LONG TIME. o crap was the caps locke on

Though I tend to agree that Dragons as we think of from myth do not exsist (though will entertain the idea due to a childhood foundness)I do belive that "Dragon" and "Dinosuar" are nothing but words and being that we know Dinosurs did in fact live on this earth, well, do you need much more proof that somthing simlar to a "dragon" once exsisted? Dragon from my point of veiw is a gigantic reptile. Some belive it to be a fire breathing, flying beast and others use the name to discribe satan. Thats all it is, a name.

As for them living today, I have to agree its far fetched but untill scientist can tell how the universe was created and if there is a god or not I will keep my mind open to the idea.
on off a lizards

As for the person whom keeps insisting that the idea of dragons was based off of such creatures as the Komodo dragon, please tell me how anceint and current western societies based their ideas of a dragon off of a Vanarid that lives on a hand full of Islands, thousands of miles away? The Komodos are extreamly isolated and were from most of the world for 1000s of years. The only other vanarid, as you know im sure, which can compete with the Komodo in size is the water monitor (forgive my lack of latin names. Im more of a snake guy) which also occurs on a small group of islands although is much more numerous then its larger cousin. Aztecs had no such large lizard to base their gods off of. Nor did the many European cultures of past and present. Basicly it is unfounded to asume that every culture which belived in dragons based the idea off of lizards from the other side of the world.res

As for Dino bones, you may be right but again, how likely is it that all of the cultures which recorded dragons throughout time all saw Dino bones, of which all had to be the same species because almost all acounts of a Dragons share very similar traits. Thats just as far fetched and asumption as saying dragons exsist in the first place.

Always keep your mind open to all posibilities. Even those that dont seem likely. Science can not proove dragons didnt exsist just like science cant proove how the universe was created. They can asume and make an educated guess but its still a guess all the same.

My 2 cents for what its worth.

We know dino bones are dinosaurs due to the hips joints which are what make dinosaurs different to other reptilians (except birds) and from the diapsid skull. Hence dimetridon is not a donosaur.

and the native americans also had dragon myths.

by the way, its 5 cents now. inflation and all.

Yes, that makes them differ from other, known exsisting reptiles. That does not however make Dragons and Dinosuar different nor does it proove dragons do not exsist or did not exsist.

Primative civilizations were indeed ignorant but I find it hard to belive that so many would have made accounts of the creature which matched those of other cultures across the world, cultures that at the time were not known to eachother. Did they realy see a gigantic, flying, fire breathing reptile? Probaly not. Did they see some sort of gigantic reptile not recorded in science besides creatures that were thought to have been extinct for millions of years? Probaly.

Another thing about the komodo debate. Why would primative society decide on the komodo as a "Dragon" and not croadilians which are extreamly wide spread and dwarf even the largest Komodo? Crocs have been known as crocs through out the world for as long as man has been around. Crocs have even been worshiped for much longer then the gods of the 3 major religions. Some "Dragons" in myth are known as sea going yet none looked crocodillian and were always described as somthing toatly different.

There is also the fact that these sea dragons were discribed as looking extreamly similar to some known, phreostoric giants of the deep. Hmmm, makes ya think.

I dont recall the source but I know the largest shark to ever live (dont remeber the name. megladon maybe? The one that was basicly an over sized great white) is thought to have been around as recently as 50,000 years ago and some speculate it could exsist even today though I highly doubt that.

Basicly without having lived in those times not even science can say with 100 percent certinty which is why saying dragons never lived isnt fact.

yeah, you got the naem right "megalodon" spelling was off, but nonetheless corect. but my theory answers your qusestions. its mans basic primal instinct acting apon our imagination creating a "dragon". truly megalodon is the perfect sea monster. it could still be imprinted in the humans mind from the time of homo habilus. it was around back then right? or was that earlier? well whatever the species that was there at the time. brain fart.

Good points, some of which are in my book. These sea dragons are known as Ketos in the Classical World and have an uncanny resemblence to Plesiosars, and "Nessie" even though these anceint peoples had no idea of the existence of such creatures. Some of the depiected Ketos are remarkably realistic looking reptiles, yet look unlike any living animal se know of today. It is very possible these images are based on real animals that are still ocassionally reported today. If these animals were quite intelligent, as many legends imply, they could easily evade mankind if they wish to, by retreating to a watery environment.

Even the Eastern and Western dragons, supposedly quite different, in fact, are extremely alike if you examine the oldest depiections of them. The fanciful oriental dragons became an artistic convention after the real dragons became more wary of humans with the invention of gunpowder weapons.

what really sets most dragons aprt is the art style of the people drawing them. that and their beliefs. in asia the dragon is a good thinf, whereas the western dragons are omens. they were so set that dragons were realt that they even included them in there non-fiction animal books.

I think they are real,or were at some point.How could every continent,and almost every traditional cultures,like the chinese,japanese,indians and so on,all describe dragonlike creatures,and how can there be carvings of them from ancient times,they were worldwide,and we could not have traveled all over in those times.the dragon seems to be something all cultures have symbolized,I highly doubt a coincidence.

People communicate with each other. It wouldn't have to be coincidence.
However if they existed there would be evidence and there is none at all.

OR, like i said only a thousand times, its the basic animal instinct of all predators we feared still imprinted in our brains from our orifgenns, but do you listen, NNOOOOOOO!

Well, if that's true then the theory of collective unconsciousness must be true. I guess that idea is still just a theory then. I'd have to agree more with the traveling aspect. Mesopotamia had been trading with cultures like China for a long time. Plus, even if they didn't make it all the way to China they would have been trading with cultures closer than China that may have been trading with China.

I still believe they are real though.

and i still beleive your a basket case and belong in a rubber room! what i am talking about is insicnt! all animals have it and thats where the dragon lyes!





P.S. how the hell do you spell lying? like as in laying down, i have absolutly NO fricken clue!

They're real, and they're a species of reptilian alien. Winged reptilians branched off from the dragons.

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis2200

But that theory does not hold water because in many cultures, the dragons are freindly and benevolent helpers of mankind, and in almost every theology they are servants to a higher god, or the god themselves. Even in the original Sumerian version of the Eden story, garbled by the Hebrews, the talking serpent-dragon is trying to help Adam gain eternal life.

If there is absolutely no supernatural realm, and mankind is merely a lucky accident, then yes, the dragons reported in every human theology are probably a myth. But if there is an intelligence behind the creation of the universe, as many scientists believe, than dragons are undoubtedly connected somehow, because they are a part of almost every human belief system. Because early man found a few old bones, and somehow believed they belonged to giant, flying, talking reptiles we call dragons today? Only a fool could think that.

Most do not believe this actually. Especially those who actually study the fields related to such things

yeah, i take back the basket case thing thing from earlier and apply that to you. that is by far the most chemicaly imbalanced thing i have heard so far.

Well.......I bet she is a helluva lot smarter than you, dude. You write like you are a 10 year old. Some of the greatest minds in science believe there is an intelligence behind the universe which is the basis of our religous beliefs. It hardly matters if a 10 year old doesn't. Many people have experienced things which science cannot explain, and mankind would not even be here, had it not been for a "one in a billion" meteor strike that destroyed the dinosaurs.

all of life is based on one in a billion things happening. your write, there are alot of things science cannot explain. but theres a whole hell of alot neither you nor me can. it all depends on your point of view. how do i write like a ten year old? i insulted someone? wow. that doesn't mean anything. you can say all you want, and so can i and i say that dragons are not real, that its just our imagination, its just us stumbling apon a few rondom bones. its simply coincidence and culture and sciance can explain it, but there is no evidence supporting isis claim of reptiles evolving into dragons. i ask you for evidence that dragons are winged reptiles that evovled from normal reptiles. whats the basis of that claim? there is absolutly no definitive evidence of dragons. so, thats what i say, now, how about you?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/scienc...icle2259490.ece

how silly are you?....or at least your argument. the skull involved in the source of the cyclops myth was from the small elephants that roamed s. europe before their extinction, not massive mamoth skulls.
also, which scientists reported dragons, name one. even Herodotus, who was not averse to relating fabulous tales doesnt mention the sort of flying lizard you have in mind; the closest he gets is winged serpents; and that is just daft.

MYTH

yeah, they did mistake the skulls for cyclops, and legbones of sauropods for pertified fruit of a giant, but that doesn't constitute a claim of dragons being real, nor does it help your argument. dragons, are not real

That doesn't change anything. They still believed the cyclops were all dead, but that dragons certainly lived on. Pliny the Elder is an example of a scientist who live long after Herodatus that still acknowledged dragons. Everybody acknowledged dragons. Just look at the hundreds of reports from England alone. The Ketos sea dragon looks surprisingly like a plesiosaur, and no one doubted their existence.

Herodotus never mentioned the word 'dragon', and Pliny the Elder never encountered them or tales of 'dragons' either. Whats more is that Pliny was never a scientist, Natural Historian/Geographer maybe, but no-one who has read more than a few badly used excerpts on websh**es or in pulp fiction for the intellectually challenged has ever considered him to be one. Where in Pliny's writings does he mention them? The fact is that NOT everybody acknowledged them at all. I try not to visit England more than is necessary but it is only about 80miles east of where im sitting. And i fail to acknowledge any 'RELIABLE' report let alone hundreds, bet you couldnt even mention 5. The flag of my country has a big red dragon on it, and my rugby team's mascot is one, so in that sense i see them (or representations of them) all the time. but my roof is not made of asbestos. You clearly dont appreciate the origins of the dragon myths and what they represent, or how this image has been used historically. SEA MONSTERS are another thing. as has been posted by many a weary person trying to get through to you- the ignorant may find dragons anywhere; if you've never encountered snakes, crocodiles, lizards, or any other reptile before, even marine ones, you might say that you saw a dragon when you first clap eyes on them! Surviving plesiosaurs have never been witnessed by a verifyable source, never been photographed, even Nessie that great fat Scottish example is just a hoax to draw in the punters (Sorry Scots but u ken its true) All photo's and sightings are either fakes, lies or misinterpretations of the facts. Just because u find an example of an animal that resembles a dragon in form doesnt mean that it is one, what about the komodo dragon? or the greater crested newt for that matter? Was a dinosaur a dragon in your estimation? is it a necessary part of the 'dragon' criteria for them to breathe fire? Have wings?
The term dragon hasnt only applied to mythical giant firebreathing lizards with wings, it has also been used to represent groups of people, and powerful individuals. And in Britain its source is the Roman Army based at Isca Silurium in Gwent, 60 or so miles to my east. The Sarmatian cavalry that came to britain brought with them their dragon standards; their culture rubbed off on us lot quite quickly because it was so close to our own before the Romans came; and because they were so dam good. the name of Arthur and his dad Uthur (to give them their recognisable English names) was often followed with Pendragon(again to use Geoffrey of Monmouth's translation-do a google search) which means the 'head of the dragon' or 'head dragon'. Unsurprisingly they were cavalry commanders. The 'dragon' could come and go at will, burning settlements willy nilly, covering much ground in a day. blah blah blah.

Ever seen a medieval drawing/or early classical one for that matter of a giraffe or hippo? or any other curious beastie from far off lands? their hardly accurate. Simple folk are exited by tall tales and fantastical creatures, always have been. When confronted by something they cannot explain they naturally construct their own explaination, often getting it way off the mark. No doubts you'd sell many books.

yeah, its good reading materiel for people who don't know what the sun is.

The myth likely came from people finding those huge bones in the ground. Some guy finds some bones goes to the local tavern and claims he killed a giant beast and uses the bones as proof.

yeah, don't knwo about the whole story tellin aspect of it, but thats probably what happened a few times.



oh, and for all you who actually think something in wich no evidence supporting its existence has suface not being shot down since modern science, DRAGONS AREN'T REAL!!!!!!!!!!

OK,lets look at this from adifferent angle,instead of saying outright they didnt or couldnt have existed,why dont we look for reasons that they could.A dragon was reputed to be a big lizard or undiscovered dinsosaur.If this is correct,they had everything an unknown species needed to survive.Undoubtedly male and female,they would have had food(if they were carnivorous,that would have included us)shelter climate and temperature,this could mean that they could have died out during the ice age,or they could have been dino's that adapted (or evolved) to the climate change after they ice age.
This would not be unusual.in the last 50 years,we have discovered the komodo dragon(a dinosaur),23 diferent species of plantlife within the last 12 months,albino centrepeeds in the Antartic and 4 weeks ago,a 10 meter long squid was found off the shores of N.Z.
Anything is possible.It's a big world out there.

The Komodo dragon is a varanid lizard (hence its name Varanus komodoensis), more commonly known as monitors, not a dinosaur, it existance has been know for much longer than 200 years, the other animals you have not new or unusual with regards to their habitat.
Some dinosaurs did adapt, there called birds. If any large dinosaurs where left they'd have been found and evidence would be plentifull because big animals eat a lot, the need a lot of space and they tend to stand out. In the pas 65 million years to the closet thing to dinosaurs that have existed are the birds and the crocodilians



New word for you HYPOTHETICAL, its says so on the DVD cover for the program. It was not real.

OK,

1/ New evidence is being found everyday(the hobbit-man for instance).

2/ I have a new word for you! Cryptozoology.(look it up) I didnt say it did probable, I said there it was possible.

3/ The komodo dragon was actually discovered by a downed pilot in WW1.( although,it's existance was RUMOURED as early as the 2nd century).

4/ And yes I said the last 50 years,when I should have said 100 years.

5/ You sound like an intelligent man( although i am sorry about your spellcheck,dont you hate it when they dont work),it's just a shame that you cant at least recognize the possibilities.

1) New evidence is found, but a complete absence of dinosaur evidence over the last 65 million years is good enough information to suggest they have disapeared but for birds.
2) I'm a real zoologist. When you reach a certain level of probability you can dismiss something scientifically.
3) The Komodo was actaully first documented in 1910 and named in a scientific paper in 1912. However varanid lizards where well known,
4) See typing mistakes are not important (like you calling a varanid a dinosaur).
5) Possibility is there, however the chance are so slim, it it can be safely dismissed.

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence".!(think outside the box)

No evidence to support its existence huh? well,you are right,theres not, but i just thought that I would let you in on a secret only known by a chosen few...wait for it....here it comes.......THE WORLD IS NOT NOT,IT'S ROUND,LIKE A SPHERE OR SOMETHING!how cool is that (but dont tell anyone ok? it's just our secret.
My is that those who thought the world was flat now know that the world is round!

See,now you are having a problem reading too,I said CRYTO-zoology-not zoology ok?and reading 1 or 2 books on animals doesnt make you a zoologist,it means you have a library card,what are you;5th or 6th grade?
My qualifications are a little bit more than that and my opinions are only theories and by no means mirror reality(yet).Go away and come back when you are ready to act like a real scientist who is willing to listen to the ideas of others.Because quite frankly,you are nothing but a spiteful and hurtful bore who believes their's is the only idea worth entertaining.

Damn right!


No evidence that we have found .....YET!

You tell him! A closed mind is as dangerous as a loaded gun!

I'm sensing a lot of negativety here,a lot of anger...Methinks you doth protest too much!

Abscence of evidence is however.

Actually I have a BSc Hons in Zoology with Marine Zoology from the University of Wales Bangor. So don't go making assumptions and don't patronise me. Cyptozoology is a branch of zoology as well (Or it would be if it was considered a real science).
Don't throw personal insults around either.
If you were a scientist you'd know you have to have evidence for a theory. What you have are unscientific ideas. If you can not back them up you have no arguement.

http://www.cryptozoology.bham.ac.uk/ : Just for you

1/ Crypto-zoology is an internationaly recognized and accepted science in the modern world.

2/ There is only one person who is making assumptions and its not me.You ASSUME you are right and everybody else is wrong,so pull your head in.A REAL scientist accepts that theirs is not the only idea.

3/ There is only one thing that really gets me going and that is closed minded individuals who are not willing to accept any ideas but their own.I do apologize if you feel that I am patronizing you,that was not my intention,but having a scientific mind does not make a person much of a scientist if they are not willing to think outside the box!

DRAGONS ARE MYTH.

check out the dinosaur/dragons thread in ancient mysteries for my argument, if u can be bothered - i know 'research' is a dirty word for some of u.
just kidding, i believe quite sincerely that you all have well balanced and formulated opinions, honest, im not lying, TRUST ME.

So,you are willing to entertain the notion of giant talking coffee beans but not dragons.Verrrry scientific!

1) Tell that to the University of Birmingham, which is a well repsected educational institution. Find me some scientific papers. Then I will believe you. How about somewhere offering a BSc in it.

2)Sorry, did you not assume I was 12 or 13? Did I miss read that? Ideas with nothing to back them up, like some semblance of evidence can be dismissed.

3)Sorry, I'll ignore scientific methodology then.

dragons are real, they have a dragon they found, frozen.
it was on the discovery channel

the dragon had wings, could breath fire, and did live and hunt around dinosours

I really am surprised at what some people believe. And that those doing the hard believing are the ones accusing others of having closed minds.

Didn't someone actually prove that dragon's were a physical impossibility? Something along the lines of 'their wings could not support their body weight' but a little more in-depth, paragraphs of information...anyone know the post I'm talking about?

And Eragon was a good movie...if only the dragon would have STFU. I kept expecting it to shout "Riiiiiiick!!!"

See,there you go again,your attitude is that of a 12 or 13 year old! not your biological age.I would have thought that a graduate of UoB. would be a little more share,shall we say,mature.I have never seen an extraterrestrial craft or alien either,but I am a least willing to accept the fact that they may exist because no-one can prove otherwise,the same can be said for dragons,until YOU can prove to ME,with a shadow of a doubt,that they could never have existed,this conversation is just a waste of space.I do thank you for one thing though.It has been a long time since I have had anyone to have a serious debate with.I wish you well,you seem like a very intelligent fellow and I have enjoyed our virtual game of tag.And I can tell that you are very passionate about your beliefs,I respect that,I may not believe it,but I respect it,so I hope that you can at least respect mine.
Lastly,there are some things that science cant explain,it doesnt mean that they dont exist and it doesnt mean that science wont one day explain them either,it just means that,for now,it remains a mystery.And that is all someone like me needs.Sometimes you just have to follow your heart.(yes,I know it sounds corny,but I believe one of your fellow country man said"many a truth is often spoken in jest")