Could dragons have existed?

[The Barbarian]

Apparently, Griffins (first seen in Central Asian art) were inspired by the fossil skeletons of ceratopsians.

 

And the cyclops was inspired by the discovery of skulls like this:

 

 

An elephant skull has what appears to be just one orbit in the center of the head.

[blazer2000x]

interesting

[Skippy]

The show had nothing going for it but some neat special effects. And it was misleading. How? It presented itself in a documentary style: a despicable approach that crappy science channels - Discovery, The Learning Channel, and now Animal Planet - have stooped to in the past few years. Hey, did you know that baby dragons stay by their mothers sides for 6 months? That's what the documentary said. Hey, did you know that parent dragons breathe fire onto the egg-containing nests to incubate them? That's what the documentary said. Hey, did you know that sex of dragon offspring is determined by the temperature the eggs were "cooked" at? That's what the documentary said. Did you know that the shells of dragon eggs are fire proof? That's what the documentary said. Did you know that dragons had gas bladders? That's what the documentary said. Did you know that dragons had molars? That's what the documentary said. Hey, did you know that dragons ground platinum with their molars, using the platinum to catalyze the ignition of the H2 in their gas bladders? That's what the documentary said.

 

I wasn't misled because I know better, but my nephew - and even his mother to some degree (she was confused, not duped) - who is very sharp and into science, was misled by their saying that scientists had found a dragon frozen in ice and were able to dissect it,

 

The show should have been required by law to interject every 5 minutes a disclaimer that says, "This is all hypothetical crap that we fabricated: do not be misled into believing that any of this is real".

So what do you tell your family about all of the documentaries and books which say that man evolved from apes which evolved from lesser mammals which evolved from reptiles... on down to a single celled organism? The science they use to make their case is just as solid as the science used in the dragon documentary you despised.

[Skippy]

A few weeks ago I watched the television premeire " Dragons: A fantasy made real". It showed how dragons could've flown, breathed fire, lived in the mezizoic era and eventually became extinct in the middle ages. I thought it was pretty good but I need more opinions about it to think how credulous this theory is in a wider perspective.

Read Job 41. Part of it reads:

18 His snorting throws out flashes of light;

his eyes are like the rays of dawn.

19 Firebrands stream from his mouth;

sparks of fire shoot out.

20 Smoke pours from his nostrils

as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.

21 His breath sets coals ablaze,

and flames dart from his mouth.

 

The rest of the chapter describes pretty much what I've always read about in dragonlore.

[Fishteacher73]

So what do you tell your family about all of the documentaries and books which say that man evolved from apes which evolved from lesser mammals which evolved from reptiles... on down to a single celled organism? The science they use to make their case is just as solid as the science used in the dragon documentary you despised.

-----

 

Read Job 41. Part of it reads:

18 His snorting throws out flashes of light;

his eyes are like the rays of dawn.

19 Firebrands stream from his mouth;

sparks of fire shoot out.

20 Smoke pours from his nostrils

as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.

21 His breath sets coals ablaze,

and flames dart from his mouth.

 

The rest of the chapter describes pretty much what I've always read about in dragonlore.

 

So what science do you bring up, beside antiquated folklore?

 

Try to bring up some science, not science fiction. Dino fossils and some of the still extant monitors (V. komodo and V. salvatori) I could see how cultures could create the MYTH of dragons, but modern science has no room for such mythology today. I doubt even the most aredent cryptozoologist would fancy the existence of such folly.

 

Some basic facts:

ALL land vertebrates are tetrapods (4 limbs in combos such as two feet, two hands; four feet; or two wings and two feet). This dragon lore is filled with two arms, two legs AND wings... That is six. That does not nor has never existed here. NO DRAGON.

 

The most advanced chemical defensive systems in verts. is toxicity. There are a few insects that that have developed the closest thing to firebreathing bombardier beetle, Brachinus fumans) There is not step to to show this ability in ANY vert.

 

These seem to be the distinction between large reptilians and dinos and "dragons". They biologically are impossible.

[Skippy]

So what science do you bring up, beside antiquated folklore?

 

Try to bring up some science, not science fiction. Dino fossils and some of the still extant monitors (V. komodo and V. salvatori) I could see how cultures could create the MYTH of dragons, but modern science has no room for such mythology today. I doubt even the most aredent cryptozoologist would fancy the existence of such folly.

 

Some basic facts:

ALL land vertebrates are tetrapods (4 limbs in combos such as two feet, two hands; four feet; or two wings and two feet). This dragon lore is filled with two arms, two legs AND wings... That is six. That does not nor has never existed here. NO DRAGON.

 

The most advanced chemical defensive systems in verts. is toxicity. There are a few insects that that have developed the closest thing to firebreathing bombardier beetle, Brachinus fumans) There is not step to to show this ability in ANY vert.

 

These seem to be the distinction between large reptilians and dinos and "dragons". They biologically are impossible.

How do you explain the widespread dragon "folklore" from non-nomadic cultures? And it's always dragons, never fire-breathing bears or wolves or bids. Why is that?

 

Not all dragons are depicted with wings, and neither does the Bible passage include wings. Wings may have been invented to explain flight which may have been due to the large lizard's jumping great distances (I've seen modern film of a small lizard which can jump several feet and flattens out its head and body to achieve some amount of gliding).

 

Humans are vertebrates and are bipeds not tetrapods (arms are not "leg-like" appendages, they are arms with hands which have opposable thumbs).

[Skippy]

A few weeks ago I watched the television premeire " Dragons: A fantasy made real". It showed how dragons could've flown, breathed fire, lived in the mezizoic era and eventually became extinct in the middle ages. I thought it was pretty good but I need more opinions about it to think how credulous this theory is in a wider perspective.

Intersting perspective here.

[nkt]

So what do you tell your family about all of the documentaries and books which say that man evolved from apes which evolved from lesser mammals which evolved from reptiles... on down to a single celled organism? The science they use to make their case is just as solid as the science used in the dragon documentary you despised.

Oh, just drop it! For crying out loud, evolution is all around us. Try reading a proper science book, or even this weeks New Scientist, where they decry the "Guided evolution" and "Intelligent Design" weirdness that is sweeping the USA, while, on other pages and totally other articles, they show valid examples that are proof of Darwin's concept, over and over and over again.

 

But there are none so blind as those who will not see. :wave:

[blazer2000x]

:wave: the truth is so difficult to find.

I don't see as it matters that much whether or not they existed fortunately. According to the science frame of mind. If you or someone else you trust has never seen it or some remains of it with their own two eyes, it dosn't exist. (I hear eyes and pictures and even bones aren't that trustworthy anymore anyway) So suffice it to say, there is no "scientific" proof for dragons so they did not exist. :wave:

On the other hand you have the only slightly less logical and vast reasons why and how they may have existed and the fact that it would not have violated and known laws or principals of physics had they existed, (despite the fact that it is unsure what they even looked like), so it is safe to say they could have as a matter of oppinion and leave it at that. :)

You decide. I sure can't, so I won't try anymore. ;)

[Fishteacher73]

How do you explain the widespread dragon "folklore" from non-nomadic cultures? And it's always dragons, never fire-breathing bears or wolves or bids. Why is that?

 

There are also plenty of myths about mermaids, bigfeet(foots sp?), flat eaths, rotating suns, etc. etc.

 

Not all dragons are depicted with wings, and neither does the Bible passage include wings. Wings may have been invented to explain flight which may have been due to the large lizard's jumping great distances (I've seen modern film of a small lizard which can jump several feet and flattens out its head and body to achieve some amount of gliding).

These are gliding lizards about 6 inches long in Borneo (which oddly has quite a few gliding species due to the geography of the forest canopy). Lizards are actually very poor jumpers due to the geometry of their pelvic girdles. (watch any lizard run and it has that swingy butt movement of an animal whose femer extends parallel to the ground from the pelvis and not perpendicular.

 

Humans are vertebrates and are bipeds not tetrapods (arms are not "leg-like" appendages, they are arms with hands which have opposable thumbs).

I suggest a comparative anatomy class for you then.

Femur=humerus

tibia=ulna

fibia=radius

carpals=tarsals

metacarpals=metatarsals.

[eMTee]

There are also plenty of myths about mermaids, bigfeet(foots sp?), flat eaths, rotating suns, etc. etc.

so our sun does not rotate/spin. one thing, Dinasours have only been around sence the mid 1800s before then, dinasours where never hear of.

[eMTee]

saying that the "big bang" was the beginning of it all...supose yoy took it in an Atheistic point of view..where did the Ball that exploded come from? as well as you consieve an idea..when it comes down to it...at the end it all had to come from nothing that became somthing..or the consept of eternity on the other hand.

 

Why do you insist that dragons never existed?

[Fishteacher73]

so our sun does not rotate/spin. one thing, Dinasours have only been around sence the mid 1800s before then, dinasours where never hear of.

AS for the sun, my point exactly. Just because there is mythology of it does not make it true.

 

I am sure there have been fossils unearthed all over the world prior to first described hadrosaurus in the UK. And they had been around much longer than the 1800's.

saying that the "big bang" was the beginning of it all...supose yoy took it in an Atheistic point of view..where did the Ball that exploded come from? as well as you consieve an idea..when it comes down to it...at the end it all had to come from nothing that became somthing..or the consept of eternity on the other hand.

 

I personally believe in an eterally oscilating universe. I think the concept of eternity (in both a forward and revesal ideal) is just fine with such a view. The idea of a creationist is just about as helpful in problem solving like expaining abiogenesis with panspermia. All it does is push that begining off to yet another, where did that come from? It essentially solves nothing (although it may have individual merit on earth, but I personally doubt it).

 

Why do you insist that dragons never existed?

Because it is simply bad science to conclude that they could have. It ignores the basics of biology. Just as a anthropocentic univese does for cosmology.

[Skippy]

I suggest a comparative anatomy class for you then.

Femur=humerus

tibia=ulna

fibia=radius

carpals=tarsals

metacarpals=metatarsals.

You are talking "similarities" not equivalencies. You would have flunked the lab practical in Human Anatomy. Similar, but different. Have your tried walking on all fours? it only works if you "walk" on hands and knees.

[bumab]

You are talking "similarities" not equivalencies. You would have flunked the lab practical in Human Anatomy. Similar, but different. Have your tried walking on all fours? it only works if you "walk" on hands and knees.

 

Hands and feet are analogus terms. We only call them that BECAUSE we walk on only two. If we walked on all 4, they would all be feet. Do bears have 2 hands and 2 feet, or 4 feet? What about squirrls?

 

Our problem with walking on all 4's is pelvic alignment, not anything to do with our hands or feet. You can't get rid of comparative anatomy with insults and disingenuous arguments.

[blazer2000x]

What makes you think dragons were biologically impossible? I'm sure you can't possibly know EVERYTHING there is to know about biology. And isn't there some kind of bug or something that can spit fire?

Also, according to the Bible, it didn't exactly breath fire. "out of his nostrils goeth smoke, his breath kindleth coals, sparks of fire shoot out." So even if it could "breath" fire, it wasn't a giant burst of flame, just a shower of sparks maybe.

[bumab]

It's not that it's biologically impossible- I don't think anyone can claim that. Just EXTREMELY unlikely, since there is no similar body plan in any known organism, alive or extinct. All organisms have a lineage that can be roughly traced through evolutionary time. Dragon's would be a crazy outlier with no decendents or anscestors. Thus, VERY unlikely.