You can use your definition Hapsburg. The trouble is that you will have to expolain exactly what you mean every time you use it, because other people will assume you are using the common meaning. You might find it easier to say "very big reptiles" when you mean what everyone else calls very big reptiles and "dragons" for what everyone else calls dragons. It'd savetime.
Dragons
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
you do know i voted for "i have a different opinion" in the poll...
I believe in cryptozoological things like the megalania or mokole mbembe...
now, the classic dragon?
no.
chinese/asiatic dragon?
possibly. these could just be oversized serpents or massive salamanders that are interpreted into a "dragon".
I believe in cryptozoological things like the megalania or mokole mbembe...
now, the classic dragon?
no.
chinese/asiatic dragon?
possibly. these could just be oversized serpents or massive salamanders that are interpreted into a "dragon".
About the origin of Chinese dragon, I watched a documentary recently and it said that there’re some archeological evidence showing that the legendary image of Chinese dragon is likely derived from the combination of 2 real animal images: pig and snake. Here are some facts:
1. In an ancient sacrificial place, something with a fossil wild hog skull as head and “S” shape body pieced up with stones and shards found in the relics of the Xing Long Wa culture about 8000 years ago.
2. An abstract image of a wild hog together with a bird and a deer painted on a pottery believed for sacrificial purpose founded in the relics of the Zhao Bao Gou culture about 7000 years ago.
3. Many jade pig dragons founded in the relics of the Hong Shan culture about 5000 years ago, showing the gradual evolution of the image of dragon. some pictures
A story linking the dots could be like: thousands of years ago in hunt-gathering era, hogs are one of the main food sources for people in a wide area in northern China and with the success of its domestication, it finally gained an important and somewhat sacred place in the mind of people. On the other hand, snake is a widespread species and has clear seasonal behaviors, thus could serve as sort of season indicator for people at the time and also be worshiped.
1. In an ancient sacrificial place, something with a fossil wild hog skull as head and “S” shape body pieced up with stones and shards found in the relics of the Xing Long Wa culture about 8000 years ago.
2. An abstract image of a wild hog together with a bird and a deer painted on a pottery believed for sacrificial purpose founded in the relics of the Zhao Bao Gou culture about 7000 years ago.
3. Many jade pig dragons founded in the relics of the Hong Shan culture about 5000 years ago, showing the gradual evolution of the image of dragon. some pictures
A story linking the dots could be like: thousands of years ago in hunt-gathering era, hogs are one of the main food sources for people in a wide area in northern China and with the success of its domestication, it finally gained an important and somewhat sacred place in the mind of people. On the other hand, snake is a widespread species and has clear seasonal behaviors, thus could serve as sort of season indicator for people at the time and also be worshiped.
First, I'd like to speak on something unresolved. While we mostly agreed that the helium air bladder would not be enough to get a dragon airborne, would it be possible for a quadrapedal animal with an overproportional wingspan, near hollow bones, and an airbladder filled with hydrogen (Twice the lifting power of helium) to fly?
Meanwhile, I must come to Hapsburg's defense in that, while he did say that he believed in dragons, he never tried to force this on anyone else. Also, I would say that while we may need proof to prove dragons' existence, we also need it to prove their lack of existence. A dragon is commonly viewed as the great winged, fierbreathing behemoth of European mythology, but it does not have to be such. As your dictionary listing said, generally viewed as such.
Asian dragons in particular ar very possible, at least the physical aspects. As for the European one, anything is possible. As was previously mentioned, the platypus was viewed as a total hoax by nearly all of the British science world until a living one was catalogued. Meanwhile, combinations of monkey and fish bodies that were known hoaxes spawned much bogus scientific research and even today are more well regarded than dragons next to bat men and women that have had children with aliens or bigfoot in the tabloids. All history of humanity is filled with views of how ludicrous our viewpoints have been. Maybe in years to come people will see how stupid we were to believe or disbelieve in dragons, but until an absolute answer has been found, everyone is entitled to their belief and no one should be insulted for it.
Meanwhile, I must come to Hapsburg's defense in that, while he did say that he believed in dragons, he never tried to force this on anyone else. Also, I would say that while we may need proof to prove dragons' existence, we also need it to prove their lack of existence. A dragon is commonly viewed as the great winged, fierbreathing behemoth of European mythology, but it does not have to be such. As your dictionary listing said, generally viewed as such.
Asian dragons in particular ar very possible, at least the physical aspects. As for the European one, anything is possible. As was previously mentioned, the platypus was viewed as a total hoax by nearly all of the British science world until a living one was catalogued. Meanwhile, combinations of monkey and fish bodies that were known hoaxes spawned much bogus scientific research and even today are more well regarded than dragons next to bat men and women that have had children with aliens or bigfoot in the tabloids. All history of humanity is filled with views of how ludicrous our viewpoints have been. Maybe in years to come people will see how stupid we were to believe or disbelieve in dragons, but until an absolute answer has been found, everyone is entitled to their belief and no one should be insulted for it.
sarcasm is the lowest form of wit my friend, mabe you have no wit??, possibly that could explain why your taking this thread seriously?JoojooSpaceape said:
If you mean that not finding fossil evidence doesn't mean they didn't exist.... then I agree!!
Now, for the part of:
"They claim that all these different cultures that have never had contact with eachother describe the same aimal as if it were real" by cool skill
Then this aint accurate. archeological and historical evidence was found establishing links even among the most isolated of communities like China and its asian neighbors to the west Persia, India and Arabia...... Persia and India to be exact are the source of most of the mythological creatures in the world, having contact with them explains how the myths were established among varient cultures.
Now, for the part of:
"They claim that all these different cultures that have never had contact with eachother describe the same aimal as if it were real" by cool skill
Then this aint accurate. archeological and historical evidence was found establishing links even among the most isolated of communities like China and its asian neighbors to the west Persia, India and Arabia...... Persia and India to be exact are the source of most of the mythological creatures in the world, having contact with them explains how the myths were established among varient cultures.
Revelation 19:6
Registered Member
I think it's possible that Dragons existed at one time or another. However, I think the knight's legends about Dragons are either exaggerations or are made up entirely.
Yazdajerd said:Then this aint accurate. archeological and historical evidence was found establishing links even among the most isolated of communities like China and its asian neighbors to the west Persia, India and Arabia...... Persia and India to be exact are the source of most of the mythological creatures in the world, having contact with them explains how the myths were established among varient cultures.
This is partailly true, but depending on when the myths first started to arise, it may not account for all. Native Americans had legends about dragons, and they had no link to Asian culture for centuries.
Dionysus20
Registered Member
Has anyone thought about this from an evolutionary standpoint?
How/what would possibly have forced a 'dragon' (one that flies and breath's fire) to evolve that way? And how come there is no creature that even remotely makes use of those adaptations (assuming they'd be selected for by nature). The only logical way would be via alchemy or magic (which seems equally illogical and impossible to argue one way or another). All I mean is, either keep it in the realm of the fantastic where it belongs or discount its existance. Don't confuse myth with science, even if we can't deny the roots (that alone proves nothing).
How/what would possibly have forced a 'dragon' (one that flies and breath's fire) to evolve that way? And how come there is no creature that even remotely makes use of those adaptations (assuming they'd be selected for by nature). The only logical way would be via alchemy or magic (which seems equally illogical and impossible to argue one way or another). All I mean is, either keep it in the realm of the fantastic where it belongs or discount its existance. Don't confuse myth with science, even if we can't deny the roots (that alone proves nothing).
We don't absolutely have to prove it evolutionally being that evolution is not proven to be true. On the other side, even looking at evolution, it would be possible that a change in the ecosystem of the world could cause formerly beneficial mutations to become difficult to live with.
The ability for an animal to shoot fire via alchemy has alredy been proven by nature. The Bombarier Beetle has a fully working flamethrower.
http://faunanet.gov.au/wos/factfile.cfm?Fact_ID=165
So if an insect can spit fire and produce the chemecles to do so via the plants it eats, why not a Reptile at some point in the past?
http://faunanet.gov.au/wos/factfile.cfm?Fact_ID=165
So if an insect can spit fire and produce the chemecles to do so via the plants it eats, why not a Reptile at some point in the past?
http://home.texoma.net/~alphom1/cyber97/bb.htm
Here is a scientific paper on how the Bombadier beetle's excretion chamber works.
Here is a scientific paper on how the Bombadier beetle's excretion chamber works.
http://library.witpress.com/pdfs/abstracts/DN04/DN04023AU.pdf
This is the one I was intending to link originally. I guess I wasn't careful when I posted the original link. I was looking at several differnt webpages and had several open windows.
This is the one I was intending to link originally. I guess I wasn't careful when I posted the original link. I was looking at several differnt webpages and had several open windows.
Well, not flame in the sense of fire, but it does present a crucial argument to wether or not Dragons could breath fire. It is possible for an animal to INTERNALLY chamber an explosive reaction. At this point, the question is could an animal excrete it?