Could dragons have existed?

[eMTee]

Well the dragons that the Bible talks about aren't said to have blown fire, but only a few times, and not refering to all dragons. consider all the tales of the past of knights slaying dragons...I will say not all of them are true, that is a fact. But are all of them false? Now surly this is a fact, that as the generations go from one to another, the stories change, and as the telephone game, the story gets warped, they start to add a little here and there untill it gets so wrong that it becomes a fary tale. but surly not ALL of the stories are so wrong that none of them are based on true events and true animals. Will no one consider this?

 

As I said, I do believe that Dragons that breathed fire did exist as real as you and I (and that also includes the ones that didn't breathe fire), but I'm not so sure if they flew. which "COULD" have been true too.

[rockytriton]

As I said, I do believe that Dragons that breathed fire did exist as real as you and I (and that also includes the ones that didn't breathe fire), but I'm not so sure if they flew. which "COULD" have been true too.

 

Did they have any magic spells? :Alien:

[bumab]

Don't forget all of the incest, animal sacrifices, and mutilation. Is this really a book that we want our children reading?

 

While we're at it, let's not let them read the dictionary, because it's got "incest," "animal sacrafices," and "mutilation" in it. Or the thesaurus, it's worse!

 

Boy, taking things out of context sure is fun!

[bumab]

___Here is what just occured to me; in several thousands years (assuming humans still extant), what 'dragons' will we have pushed up through history. That is to say, what form would this discussion take when future folks talk about us as we talk about those past. What might qualify as our Dragon? :Alien:

 

Good question! How about grizzlies, or lions? If either go extinct soon, after about a thousand years, I bet they could be looked upon as legend. Although we've got better written records now to disprove any crazyness...

[Fishteacher73]

Well the dragons that the Bible talks about aren't said to have blown fire, but only a few times, and not refering to all dragons. consider all the tales of the past of knights slaying dragons...I will say not all of them are true, that is a fact. But are all of them false? Now surly this is a fact, that as the generations go from one to another, the stories change, and as the telephone game, the story gets warped, they start to add a little here and there untill it gets so wrong that it becomes a fary tale. but surly not ALL of the stories are so wrong that none of them are based on true events and true animals. Will no one consider this?

 

As I said, I do believe that Dragons that breathed fire did exist as real as you and I (and that also includes the ones that didn't breathe fire), but I'm not so sure if they flew. which "COULD" have been true too.

 

 

There are multitudes of stories of mermaids. There are the entire set of myths ranging from Japanese, Norse, and Roman/Greek. These were in stories that people believed. Does that make them true? I really do not think so. There is reasonable evidence of very large monitor lizards. Megalania prisca was just one. An Austrailian lizard that grew in excess of 20 feet. I can see how this could be interpreted as a "dragon". Yet breathing fire is a fancy. There is no biological precsident for such an ability (There are some insects that do essentaillay have a controlled directed explosion that can be used, but hat is about it.

[Fishteacher73]

BTW there are extant lizards that can "fly" (gliding is a more accurate term). Draco volan is a tropical lizard from Borneo that can do such things (The forests of Borneo have a surprising number of "flying" animals due to the structure of the canopy).

[rockytriton]

BTW there are extant lizards that can "fly" (gliding is a more accurate term). Draco volan is a tropical lizard from Borneo that can do such things (The forests of Borneo have a surprising number of "flying" animals due to the structure of the canopy).

 

don't forget the couple species of dinosaur that could fly.

[eMTee]

There are multitudes of stories of mermaids. There are the entire set of myths ranging from Japanese, Norse, and Roman/Greek. These were in stories that people believed. Does that make them true?

 

For you being an evolutionist, I would think you think it very possably.

 

As for me. a creature could have existed...but I think/know that the part that they where half human, and that they looked like that,..and misalaneus things...that that story is quite so waped...more so than the dragon story. and also, the mermaids that we read in stories today...and probably in ancient times have no proof of their existence whatsoever.

 

I believe that there where dragons that flew...I know.

[Fishteacher73]

Being an evolutionist, I need logic and evidence. There are neither for the case of dragons. It is much more logical to conclude that possibly some of the large lizards had been spotted and possibly even some fossil evidence to have people believe in dragons 500 years ago. Today the evidence is perdominantly supportive of the concept of dragons being just myth. It is just fancy to think that the mythological dragon is or ever was real. I know they have all kinds of back story and illustrations of them in D&D books, but that is just fiction.

[rockytriton]

For you being an evolutionist, I would think you think it very possably.

 

Being an evolutionist doesn't mean that you think a fish could evolve directly into a thinking human, that statement made no sense.

[Dark Mind]

I'm just going to answer the thread's question, without reading prior posts. Hope I don't cause a disruption, but I would just like to state what I believe real quick and I'll be on my merry way.

 

Yes, I do believe dragons *could* have existed (I'm assuming your talking about the mythical fire breathing dragons and not dinosaurs [horrible lizards] ), but I also think we would have found their bones by now, unless they all died out while flying over the Atlantic and their corpses just slowly sank to the bottom of the unimaginable depths of the ocean. Odds of that are probably 1:9691206565 though, so they all probably died in their natural habitat (Volcanoes) and their bones/exoskeletons were destroyed by the molten rock and nauseous fumes.

[Fishteacher73]

did everyone crush up their ten-sided die and snort them?

 

 

Unicorns are more likely than dragons.

[Queso]

and sasquatch is more likely than unicorns.

[bumab]

Actually, I betcha unicorns had a pretty good chance of existance. Makes sense- large herbivores often have horns (rhino's, cows, etc), especially the males, in similar places on their body (i.e. not an elgongated tooth). And that would make them a pretty tempting target for hunters.

 

Besides, from the Simpsons, we all know Homer killed the last one by making it dig a hole under the wall of the Garden of Eden! :circle:

[rockytriton]

Unicorns are more likely than dragons.

 

I believe that unicorns did exist, but then there was an outbreak of homosexuality (we all know that unicorns are totally gay), and since the opposite sexes would never pair up, there were no baby unicorns. :circle:

[TeleMad]

I saw this show, it was very good.

 

Nah, it sucked big time. But I guess if someone just wanted to veg out and be entertained with silliness for an hour, or cares about special effects instead of substance, then I guess they could find it "very good".

 

rockytriton: I disagree with the complaints that it was misleading people.

 

And I disagree with you, and have reasons to.

 

My sister is law missed the first couple minutes and came in where they were talking, in very misleading, factual, documentary-style, about scientists having found a frozen dragon corpse in a cave, which they took back to a lab and were analyzing. She was confused: why is this documentary saying these things? Is it true?!?!?!?! She did figure out that the show was full of crap, but for a few minutes she was confused. NO ONE WOULD BE CONFUSED LIKE THIS IF THE SHOW WEREN'T MISLEADING. The show PRETENDED to be factual when it was completely hogwash.

 

And as I pointed out before, my nephew - who is pretty sharp even though he is young - was completely misled: he believed that massive amoutn of crap the show spewed out about scientists finding the remains of a dragon, with molars with platinum in them, a gas bladder, etc. The MAJORITY of the show pretended to be factual and only brief and easily overlooked 'disclaimers' were thrown in occassionally.

 

An ad for a miracle diet or miracle cure also has its occassional fine print disclaimers, but that doesn't mean the ads aren't misleading.

 

To not be misleading the (worthless) show should have shown, every five minutes, in a prominent message, that what was being presented as if it were fact was rather only pure fiction, without any evidence backing it up; and, it shouldn't have even presented its fantasy world as a documentary.

 

The show plays right into Creationists hands. It shows "science" fabricating scientific 'facts' out of thin air in order to prop up a baseless position.

[rockytriton]

We'll have to agree to disagree. My wife walked in on me watching it and she said "what? This isn't real is it?" I said, of course not, it's being done like a documentary. Which was made obvious if she watched it for another 10 minutes. You can't call something misleading if you just check a 5 minute clip of it, it's just taking it way out of context.