Science accepted the facts about the existance of dinos, they only found them as bones only and they classified them as dinos family. They influence the people and thought them that those bones are dinos, and these we're already planted on the minds of every people, and whatever they found huge bones af ancient animals they classified them as dinos. Scientific educations means to learn through researches, keen observations, proper thinking and judgement to prove a certain fact or opinion, it doesn't end by merely it was already proven by science or by these people. they are also human capable of mistakes.

You are absolutely right. I agree.

Yes they are capable of mistakes, hence peer reviewed jouranals. We can well within the 95% confidence ratio say that the bones belong to dinosaurs, not the none existant dragon. A creature of fairy tale and myth, not reality.

These Scientist we're not yet there when these creatures existed. that's why they cannot make into conclussions that those bones of gignatic animals are all dinos. and besides not all paleontologists believed that those creatures are all dinos.

I will attempt to sum it all up. Dragons were a myth made up by ancient peoples encouraged by dinosau bones. One cannto argue that scientists back then documented them, for science back then was, I don't even think you could call it science. But inconclusion dragons:fake.

nice try but not yet satisfied
and not convinced.

Dragons are part of a supernatural realm believed in by billions of humans, including brilliant scientists superior in intellect to anyone who posts on UM. People will continue to see these creatures, though they may never be caught or killed.

You really have no idea what you are talking about moe. People found bones that they thought belonged to Giants and cyclops. They believed these creatures lived in the distant past, but thought they were all dead in their own time. But they continued to believe in dragons because people constantly saw them, or so the historical records state. People still see such creatures, only they do not call them dragons anymore, but they were called that once. Serious scientists believe in dragonlike cryptids such as Nessie, Champ, Oggopogo, and a host of others. They just don't call them dragons anymore, though our ancestors did. In St. Columba's account, nessie is called a dragon.

If an amateur claimed he had seen a Coelecanth fish, before its "scientific" discovery, he would have been dismissed as a fool by science. But then the impossible happened and they really were found to still exist. This is no more extraordinary than if a dinosaur were to be found deep in a rain forest. But I doubt this would have been the origin of dragons, for dragons have been reported on every continents for thousands of years, so if they were normal, flesh and blood creatures, their remains would have been found by now. Like Nessie, who has been seen by many people, these creatures do not seem to leave physical remains, and apparently can survive in places where there appears to be very little to eat.

Show me some valid infomation showing me otherwise please.

Erm I would love to see something by a serious zoologist (because the opinions of a chemist when it comes to zoology are not really relevant) showing good evidence for the existance . These same people drew very ridicoulous altered images of sharks and whales (with long necks) these people mistook dugongs for mermaids and the carcass of a basking shark for a sea monster. These things exist only on the page and in the mind. That means they are not real.

Yep I agree 100%

Completely Mythological...

The discovery of giant bones combined with a bit of imagination and anything could be created.

I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU EXPLAINED IT RIGHT!!!

Neither I nor you were already there during the time of these huge creatures, that's why you don't have any idea all of hose creatures roamed on Earth before man existed.

no person has the same idea and imagination at the same time and place. people all over the world almost has the same concept with dragons even during the ancient times.

So you assume they must exist. I could by the same logic say there were giant talking coffee beans around before man existed, it is just as valid as saying there were dragons.
We know a good deal about the earth pre man, not everything but enough to know that the only really large synapsid animals around since the dinosaurs are crocodilians and some birds and the birds where pretty much gone before we arived. There is no real evidence of dragons. Folk tales are not real evidence becuase they couldn't identify anywhere near the amount of creatures we can now and there is also the ever persisting truth of most people are in fact just not very intelligent.

I agree with what you are saying in the sense that there really is no actual evidence of dragons exsisting..atleast not fossil evidence. But is it not true that we discover new species of dinosaurs as well as other animals all the time? Wouldn't you say it is atleast possible that we could find evidence of an actual dragon or dragon like creature in the future? It really wouldn't suprise me.

It would suprise me greatly. I don't see how any animals could survive as a traditional fire breathnig dragon. Biological systems can be tough, but only bacteria is ever that tough.
I believe the only dragons around ever will be the lizards we call dragons.

But when giant talking beans compared to the existance of dragon, i think it is more logical to pressumed that dragons are more realistic than that? you believed more in science so it will be more better if you will think like them. as science believer you need to search more information and meanings than judging something without proving. besides no one really knows what happened and what was here on Earth million years ago. Dragons and dinos are similar to each other.

how about a certain beetle who releases boiling water from its body as defense fom its prey? so it is possible for an animal to breath fire also, which was explained the animal planet's documentary about dragons. and not all dragons can breath fire,

Good point! The bombardier beetle doesn't release just boiling water but a mixture of hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide perhaps other chemicals depending on the species. So I really wouldn't find it too hard to believe that perhaps a dragon like creature could have some sort of a complex ability to use for defense. It's interesting how so many different cultures all believed there was at a time a fire breathing serpent... coincidence? Who really knows for sure. But once again I'll say I'm not saying that I fully believe dragons exsisted, just keeping an open mind to something that may be very possible.

Yes I agree, there are a lot of creatures from the past and present that were not yet discovered and identified by science. who knows someday that the dragons that we read from books are now one of the newly discovered new species of animals or just like what the animal planet did in the documentary, they accidentally found bodies of these creatures on some icy regions, perfectly preserved.

What I find a bit dicey though it that while most cultures have references to dragons, most of the pictures of the dragons don;t look similar. In fact, the only thing they seem to have in common is that they somehow resemble an elongated snake. I think that it is possible that they have just taken something known and dangerous to them (ie a snake) and let their fears elaborate for them.

It is actually is not because there is the same amount of evidence for a giant talking coffee bean as there is for a dragon. I am also not a science believer, I am a scientist (a zoologist to be precise). It does not matter what you think is more logical, there is the same amount of physical evidence for dragons as there is for giant coffee talking coffee beans. None.



That is a hyperthetical documentry, you realise this don't you. Also beetles are completetly unrelated to and vertebrate. It also does not do it through its mouth, which be destroyed if such a process went through that direction. The beetles carapace also helps in keeping its structural integraty while heating to that extent. NO VERTEBRATE IN THE WORLD CAN SURVIVE 100°c.

Exactly, misrepresentation of animals has been extremely common through history. Badly drawn images and second hand infomation lead to the evolution of new mythologies. Or you know, someone could just make something up. People will believe an incredable amount of nonsense about the world, especially when they don't understand.

You are only showing your own ignorance here. The carefully executed sculptures of classical long necked reptilian sea dragons (Ketos) are not altered whales or sharks. These people knew exactly what whales and sharks looked like, and were so sophisticated in the sciences that they knew the differences between toothed and baleen whales, and built remarkable mechanical computers that boggle the minds of modern man..

They understood the ketos was an entirely different species, and in the best sculptures give it very realistic reptilian features, and its basic shape is much like that of a plesiosaur, or St. Columbas "dragon" in the River Ness.

Greater scientists than you will ever be do not dismiss the existence of these creatures so lightly. Real scientists remember the Coecylathanth and other creatures that "science" erroneously said "could no longer exist" but did. And many real scientists, also greater than you will ever be, believe in faiths around the world, that surprisingly ALL contain creatures we refer to as "dragons" in their theologies.

If you knew anything about paleontology, you would also know that it takes experts to determine what animals bones come from. What would give ancient men in many regions, were there are no reptiles at all or only tiny ones, the idea that these huge creatures were reptiles? Modern science knows this, but ancient man would not have unless they actually saw the living animals.

And if you knew anything about ancient mythologies, you would know that the same ancient peoples who built computers and drew the ketos as a realistic marine reptile, acknowledged bones which they took to be giants and cyclops, but "scientifically" dismissed them as still living creatures because people never saw living ones. But the greatests scientists of that age, along with everyone else, all over the world were seeing dragons. And intelligent, reliable people are still seeing "dragons" all over the world, only now we don't call them dragons anymore. And real scientists believe in them and have recorded their soundings and shapes on scientific instruments.

This is their mythology, there is a huge difference between that at reality.

Actually you are wrong. The earliest depictions of dragons in both the East and West do look the same. Han dynasty dragons look like Sumerian dragons, complete with wings. As cultures saw fewer and fewer dragons, their images were drawn from memories instead of real life, and the images took on the aritistic conventions of that particular culture. l provide archaeological examples that prove this in my upcoming book.

Can you provide physical evidence however? With out physical evidence there is nothing to show such an animal exists and there is absolutely zero evidence physically of such a thing. There are many mythological creatures, do you believe they exist to?

Maybe once it was more common to see these as they rose up while dying and more common to come across their bodies.


source

^ Yikes, that's one ugly shark.

There lots of animals that could have been mistaken for dragons. The oarfish for a start.

Yep, and people thought Komodo dragons were actually dragons when they were first discovered. but it is not a dragon it is just a large varinid, commonly known as monitor lizards.

Mattshark,

stop insulting our intelligence, some of us actually paid attention to science professors, and look it up for our selves.

we are also entitled to believe whatever we wish to believe, regardless, of your close-mindedness, i have an uncle, who is a Chemist, he once told me, that even though he was a chemist, he still needed to be knowledgeable in biology, which includes zoology and genetics.

Dragons as we know them are probably more a figment of the imagination, however the creatures that led to them may very well have been either mammalian or reptilian. Remember the Scandanavian dragon has a head that resembles a wolf.

now a question for you, which is off topic, do you think Sasquatch(Bigfoot) doesn't exist?

You don't need knowledge of Zoology to be a chemist. You may obtain some, but it is in no way needed.
You may have paid attention, but many people did not.

I personally do not believe in bigfoot, but as crytids go it is one of the most likely.

Hmmm.. so you think big foot is possible, but dragons aren't? Even though dragons have a crapload more sightings, more literature and more collected knowledge about them. I still don't see what your argument is that some of the fossils we believe to have been dinosaurs aren't dragons.

I think that the shark, Oarfish and the komodo dragon are all possible causes for the myth of dragons; along with many other possibilities. These things are all spread across the world, look vaguely alike and appear to be dangerous. Who wouldn't let their imagination go wild?

Besides, apart from humans, it is very rare for a species to spread itself across the continents. Unless you are suggesting that they flew across the sea', don't you find it a bit unlikely that they were the same species? It is much more likely that they are all "monsterizations" of the (relatively common) reptile.

Well we have called them dinosaurs and we know there haven't been any in the last 65 million years, why would the not be dinosaurs,we can find quite a bit about it from their fossils, such as them all being diapsids and related to birds and crocodiles, which are the other diapsids. I do not believe big foot exists, but if there is an undiscovered species that is large in a massive area of forest it is far more likely than an animal which is has no reliable evidence to back up its existance. There is plenty more about goblins in literature too, do you believe in all fairy and folk tales?

how is that insiltong you? how? he simply said that the komod was oftetn mstaken sa a dragon, went into a little deatails? but how is that insulting? you call him closeminded, but all you see in a simple reply is an attack of ones intelligence. why? bcause he doesn't agree with you? yes, i agree that dragons are from the imagination, thats its mans animal instinct still there, all the predatory fears in one animal, that we aren't as human as we think, but how does he insult you there?





"irony is hipocracy" me, january, 06

first off read all of his entries in this thread, you will find that he calls us all ignorant, on more than one occasion.
i will say he is entitled to his opinion, i am as well, and you are also.

Why a large reptilian, why not a fairly large mammal? our ancestors were more likely to be hunted by a large wolf or rather large feline, than some lizard, and the only reptile known to hunt humans(as well as worshipped) is the Crocodile.

I never once called you anything.

Click to view attachment

This is what I photographed in the past couple of weeks. To me, it looks like a dragon, but more of an ethereal than a physical type.

Dragon was the first thought that sprang to mind when I saw this photo. Many cultures, especially China embrace the reality of dragons, although here in the UK, we are aware of George and the Dragon legend constantly through history, and you can't imagine the number of pubs with that name.

I wonder how so many diverse cultures came to the same conclusion that dragons exist in one form or another throughout the centuries.

he is always entitled to his opinion, we al are, but yours is slander and therefor you are not under the first ammendmant, you were entitled to it, but now you broke that amendment, he didn't do anything, he dousn't agree with you and now you attack him and say he did, he didn't and now your a hipocrite.

Mind posting an unedited photo of that?

Sometimes I question if they all went extinct 65 million years ago. There's still a lot in the depths of the sea we know little or nothing about. As for fairy tales, I try to take it with a grain of salt. Most of them are trying to put forth a lesson. Some I think have some truth to them, mostly exaggerated or biased though. Many of these myths have their dopplegangers all over the globe. Either they're all describing something they have seen and witnessed, or they are describing an element of the human mind.

i will apoligize to mattshark, speshall mareens, it is not your job to determine slander, but that of the moderators.

as for dragons, i believe they once existed in one form or another, big and small, corporeal and incorporeal. you can dispute all you want, but those that believe will, and those that don't won't, as simple as that, though very black and white.

While accounts confirm they must be physical creatures in order to prey on humans and animals as is a prevalent in most of the accounts throughout the world, the lack of physcial remains implies they have supernatural characteristics science still cannot explain, as so many other things on UM forums.

Other phenomena once thought supernatural we now know are based on physical laws. Some scientists believe that humans in just a few thousand more yeares may learn to use incredible psychic abilities we barely understand today. Now imagin intelligent creatures collectively known as "dragons" that have dwelled on the earth 100 millions years. Nessie was originally called a dragon. People still see the creature despite scientiests who say it is impossible. And then there are other scientists with just as many degrees who say it must be a real creature. The same applies to dragon-like creatures seen all over the world.

Scientists who tell us there can be no dragons, also show us there are inexplicable stone tools and artifacts in stratas from the times of dinosaurs. But anything that cannot be explained is quietly swept under the rug.

Scientists, like anyone else, may scoff at all supernatural and paranormal events, until something happens to them. Then they are believers, just like all the people, very reliable ones like police officers, who have seen "monsters" that would have been called "dragons" in earlier times.

Those tools have been sceintifically disproven, they are not swept under the rug, they are explained with in scientific journals and the data is analysed and peer reviewed.
I would like to see some serious reports from well respected scientists in regards to psychic abilitys.
The lack of physical remains actually implies something doesn't exist actually, not that it is supernatural. That is quite simple logic. It does not matter what people claim to have seen or whether they are a police man or not. It doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean the haven't misidentified massively, which si something many people could do and have been known to historically for thousands of years.
As with nessie, there is nothing at all to say it exists and I would love for you to show credable scientifc papers saying it must exist.
Yes imagine, no proof, no reliable evidence, just myth and fairy tale and unreliable witness.
There is nothing to suggest dragons exist, nothing at all.

The thing about deep oceans is large boney animals can not live there, deep sea life is small, it has to be due to the immense pressure it is under from the sheer volume of water upon it.
Also dinosaurs are obligate air breathes, they'd be pretty useless at depth.
It would be element of the human mind, it is fear of the unknown and the needing to explain what is not understood. Even the myths which are worldwide can have large regional diversity.

i can say its slander all i want, i just can't do anything other than argue it, dragons are , and always have been, figments of mans imagination, the primal part of our brain conjuring up a creture that is all the perdators once feared in one, reminding us we aren't as human as we think.

still not your job.
why a large reptilian beast, why not a large mammalian, especially in northern Europe, where snakes and other reptiles were either in very short supply or not there at all, i mean i would be more afraid of a large European black wolf, than say a garter snake.

Because in many parts of the world reptiles are dangerous, there are more venomous snakes than you can count (well around 420 species split between Viperidae and Elapidae) and these have led to high death rates in humans throught human history. There are also the crocodilians, two species of which actually are natural predators of humans (Nile and salt-waterer crocodiles) and other species like the mugger and siamese are known to be dangerous too as well as the alligators. There are also the large constricting snakes (anaconda's, python's and boa's) and the danger of these animals (you could probably include large varinids in the list too) has been ingrained into human memory and mythology has likely sprang up from that and has stuck or been spread from areas where there are more dangerous reptiles than the adder (which can still kill). Europe is unusual as the only continent (I'm excluding Antarctica because no one lives there) with out crocodiles and has many less snakes than other countries, but if you look at more recent European mythology it becomes very much more based around animals found with in Europe.
Christianity has also played a part in Europes fear of reptiles to.

what i am saying is its the basic instinct of dangeraouse animals, there are mammalian fetures in "dragons"