Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Dragons: Myth or Real?


angel d devil

Dragons: A Mythical creature or Real?  

124 members have voted

  1. 1. A. Myth or real creature

    • A. Myth
      76
    • B. Real
      55


Recommended Posts

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

You are absolutely right. I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Show me some valid infomation showing me otherwise please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yep I agree 100%

Completely Mythological...

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Edited by angel d devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep I agree 100%

Completely Mythological...

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither I nor I 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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,

Edited by angel d devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

^_^;)

Edited by angel d devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
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.

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,

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.

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.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Edited by draconic chronicler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Edited by draconic chronicler
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.