Last February 2006 I have watched this documentary film on the Discovery Channel about the existance of dragons. The title of that episode is DRAGONS: FROM MYTH TO REALITY. it features there about the discovery of a baby dragon and its mother perfectly preserved inside a cave in europe frozen with ice together with human bodies that were burned to death. the human bodies with their clothings can be recognized that they lived around 10th-12th century AD. Scientist found out that those creatures are different from dinosaurs because they have the ability to breath fire. it was also being stated the The history of science because of the discovery. they even claimed the three types of daragons. the land dragon, the water dragon and the mountain dragon of europe. I don't know if that documentary proved that dragons are real and not a myth. And upto now i haven't heard that science already included them as part of the dinosaur family.

I would have to say that dragons are nothing but a myth as i have'nt seen any evidence to say otherwise.

A myth.

there just a result of ancient people finding dinosaur bones.

voted both real and myth

The only big dragon is Varanus komodoensis

Myth: Fire breathing dragons slayed by knights in shining armor

Real: Meat eating komodos. Bearded lizards. Water dragons


This was probably some sort of large, now extinct creature which attacked those people who had a fire going.

I believe they are real. Not sure however if they ever existed in a physical form.

That tv program was fake and was just showing what dragons would be like IF they were real.http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/index.html

this should be under cryptozooligy. anyone who thinks they are real is crazy.

meaning the story of St. Goerge the dragon slayer is all but lies?

Hmm I wonder why a certain somebody hasn't found this thread yet.

Thank you for commenting and sharing some of your knowledge about dragons. But it was also mentioned in the film that the possibilities that they are real is big. How come that most people around the world tells something about them if they haven't seen any of them during the ancient time? and also why is it their concepts of the feature of the dragons are simmilar? and even in the Bible also mentioned about dragons. Saint Goerge life has something to do with the dragon and he even killed dragon in one village in England that was being disturbed by this creature. and even here in our country we have our own version of dragon and it was named LAHO by our ancestors.

At least we can come to the conclusion that they don't exist anymore.

I have heard one theory that made a lot of sense to me and that is that the dinosaurs didn't have to have died off millions of years ago all at once but instead gradually have died out with some late survivals. This could explain where the legends of DRAGONS MAY HAVE CAME FROM.

No they all died well before the evolution of humans.
The myths came from people finding dinosaur bones.

plus there is no evidence to support that theory. what nutjob white trash site did you get that idea from? its shouldn't even be called a theory but a drunken dream.

I'm loving your recent constructive criticism...

thank you really what dragons are is all the basic human fears rolled into one beast in our imagination. the first evidence of "dragons" is paintings on walls of buildings from meopotamia, long before the discovery of dinosaur fossils

We don't know when the first dino fossil was found...just the first documented one.

i know, but thats what i am saying

I voted both.

Same old reasons as stated in every other "are dragons real" thread...dinosaur bones dragged up by ignorant and ancient mankind, exaggerated upon, also dragons being physically impossible to begin with due to their body weight and wing spans etc.

The only dragons alive today are Komodo's and the cast of Desperate Housewives.

lol thats good. or maby in, in, in... ok i got nothin

Would these ancient cultures have had the knowledge to reconstruct the bones of a dinosaur? Not to mention it's very rare to find an entire dinosaur fossil.

A skull or a gigantic leg-bone would be enough for the ignorant and imaginative.

Real or not this thing sure looks like one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...2194527,00.html

Ohh, nice find

I know who that certain somebody is Cadetak...don't tempt the fates!

Actually, you are wrong.

Gigantic bones were not enough for ancient peoples to believe in living dragons.

Here is a case in point. The classical world believed there were once cyclops, becasue they misidentified mammoth skull and bones to be from these creatures. But because nobedy in their times ever saw a cyclops, they believed they had all died out.

Not so the dragons. The greatest scientists of the day reported living dragons and recorded their habits. They were regularly seen for centuries and as late as the 17th century were incluced in books as regular animals. And long after that, sightings still persist, even to this day only now people do not like calling them dragons. Sea serpents, lake monsters, pterosaurs, etc, are more popular names for what our ancestors called dragons.

The long necked reptilian Ketos sea dragon appears on numerous objects of ancient art, and resembles no living creature, but has characteristic of extinct marine reptiles. Even if the ancients saw a few bones, not one back then would have known they were the bones of a reptile until modern times. Yet these people definately saw a long necked reptilain creature of enormous size, and faithfully depicted it in their art. People still see them today, only now we don't call them dragons.

Do these creatures have some supernatural or at least understood abilities as most of the myths attest? And this is why they elude detection in our modern world? Perhaps. The greater part of the world population believes in aspects of the supernatural, including some of the worlds most brilliant scientists. And these "dragons" do appear in the belief systems of virtually every human culture, unlike any other so called mythic creatures.

Too late...

thats a pachysephlosaur. the first confirmed dinosaur fossil find was that of a saaurapod leg bone and was thought to be a giant's petrified fruiit. at most ancient peple found one or two bones not whole skeletons, it takes alot of work to unearth whole skeletons and the odd bone or two is about all they probably found. people used to think that fossils grew in the rocks to. so really to the ignorant man, its up to ones imagination

Well, I'm crazy enough to believe it! The reason I believe it is that at the time of dinosaurs there probably was volcanoes, lava was close to the surface, and the atmosphere was probably made up of a lot of sulphur. Somehow, maybe the tyronasaurus rex had a rough tongue and every time it rubbed its tongue across the top of its mouth, it was like a match. Think about it! Something like that had to be real. Maybe it wasn't fire, it was just smoke and maybe that is why the dinos died off because there was no water. At the time of the dinosaurs, the earth was soft, the lava was close to the surface, and whenever a meteorite would strike the earth, it would make a huge lake of lava, and swallow the dinosaurs. Whatever dinosaurs remained when the earth atmospere burned up and space rushed in and froze everything, they froze standing up or laying down almost dead. That is why we have only a few remains and a lot of fragments.

Well ,a man was driving his car past an insane asylum and the insanees were walking around the fence and suddenly, the lug nuts of one tire comes off and the tire comes off and strands the man on the side of the road. The man gets his tire and he is sitting there next to his car about to cry, 'What am I gonna do, how am I gonna get home?' One of the patients stops and looks awhile and says, 'Need help?' The man says, 'No, no, I don't need help.'

The man jacks his car up and sits down and waits for somebody to come down the road. After awhile the same patient walks around and stops and looks and after awhile says, 'Need any help?' and the guy says 'No,no, I don't need help!'

The patient sits there for a long time looking. About two hours go by and nobody comes down the road. Another hour goes by and the same patient walks by and asks, 'Need help?' The man gets angry and snaps at the guy 'I told you, I don't need help!'

The patient sits down and after another hour says, 'What I would do is take a lug nut off of each tire and put it on this tire and that will be enough to get you home.'

'Wow,' says the man, 'that is so wise, so smart!'

The patient says, 'Well, I'm crazy; I'm not dumb!'

Googled that and got no results.

probably spelt it wrong

Do you know the correct spelling? I would like to lean more about dinos like this one if there are any. Thanks.

pachycephalosaur is the right spelling. it gets results.

Kewl, thanks!

Different civilizations, different assumptions. One culture would see a cyclops bone, the other a dragon bone. Either way we can't know for certain.

And the scientists you're talking about. Are they the same ones that believed the planet was flat and believed adamantly that there was a god without a shred of evidence?

they thought mammath bones were cyclops heads.

We can't judge you with your opinion about it. Besides no one knew if some of those bones of dinos that they dug up we're already dragons and they just included them as one of the dinos family. since dinos and dragons are very similar to each other.

Yes we can, there is no evidence of dragons, there is tons for dinosaurs.

Well, what if some of those dinosaurs were actually dragons? How can you really tell the difference? All we have to go by is bones, we really don't know squat about the specifics of how they lived.

Then how can you jump to the conclusion they where dragons then? That is just foolish, your jumping to the least obvious and logical conclusion, which is not a smart thing to ever do.

But those tons of dinos that you mentioning are just only bones, tons of bones and these people just invented namesfor these creatures even though that their not sure what kind of dinos they are. they just assumed that they are dinos.

Read the post above relating to logic and conclusion.

Then how can you also jumped into conclussions that they are all dinosaurs? you do the same too. illogical conclusions.

Wrong there proof of dinosaurs there is no proof or evidence of dragons, also you clearly are lacking scientific education, unlike the palaentologists who do this work and know considerably more about there work than some keyboard warrior.

It really doesn't seem that illogical to me. Looking at the accounts of how dragons look in legends, it looks very similar to how the constructed bones of dinosaurs look. Dinosaur is just a word, as is dragon. Perhaps they are one in the same. I'm not quick to discount all of the tales of sightings and accounts of people seeing dragons/dinosaurs in the time of humans. There's just too many to dismiss it as ignorance IMO.

"Where the original concept of a dragon came from is unknown, as there is no accepted scientific theory nor any evidence to support the past or present existence of dragons. While the concept of dragons may be true or false, the fact that dragons are a myth in so many places that had no contact with each other suggests that dragons are possibly extrapolations based upon some ordinary forms of creature coupled with common psychological tendencies amongst disparate groups of humanity." ..taken from wikipedia ( Speculation of Dragons )

Many myths have some underlying truth to them.. Who is to say that we know at this present time of every creature that has ever exsisted? We don't. We find new species of dinosaur all the time.. who knows if in the future we will uncover the bones of an actual dragon? I'm not saying that I believe they were real but I'm not going to say that it isn't possible.

It is dismissed becuase these are the same people who thought dugongs where mermaids and a washed up basking shark was a monster with legs. There is 65 million years between dinosaurs and humans and there is not one shred of evidence to show they ever co-existed. Whether it seems illogical to you is irrelevant because you are not scientifically trained and seem to know nothing of procedure and the work done to obtain such results. Yes they could have called them dragons, but they were not because they are not like the already named dragons of myth.