Dragons

[Yeshua-Knight]

I believe these refer to dinosaurs. The "fire-breathing" could mean they had very hot breath. If dragons did exist, why haven't skeletons or any other evidence been discovered before?

dinosaur = big lizard
dragon = big lizard that breaths fire

how would one be able to distinguish between dragon fossils and regular dinosaur fossils??

i'm not saying that i do believe in "dragons", but i do believe that the devil is referred to as a dragon, so it tends to have a negative connotation to it
i do also believe that it's possible that the stories of dragons originally were stories about what we consider dinosaurs, but since most stories were passed around from mouth to ear, things got exaggerated, which happens even now when a story is told from memory rather than recorded for one and all to read or hear, personally, i say that leviathan and behemoth are names for dinosaurs that humans had encountered, now the unicorn's a whole 'nother story, yet an other fantasy animal that is mentioned in the book of job, is it the one horned horse that we all think of when we think of a unicorn, or is it just a wild animal with horns that's about the size of cattle like i read in a bible's study notes, who's to say for sure

'nuff said

[termyt]

As a result, I think we can safely conclude that dragons (as we know them) never existed anywhere other than in human dreams and nightmares.

That's the rub, isn't it? "As we know them." I think that applies to most of what we know of pre-history. What do we really know about dinosaurs? All we have to go on is their fossilized skeletons. We make assumptions based on those old bones, but that's all they are. Assumptions. And assumptions can be wrong.

[White Raven]

That's the rub, isn't it? "As we know them." I think that applies to most of what we know of pre-history. What do we really know about dinosaurs? All we have to go on is their fossilized skeletons. We make assumptions based on those old bones, but that's all they are. Assumptions. And assumptions can be wrong.

I just wanted to add this.
What would people think about us, if they just had the ruins of our daily lives to go by.
Would they think that we see movie stars as Gods?
Would they assume that a simple Barbie doll is a idol?
I think that archeologist do a lot of guessing and over glorifying ancient races.
Not that I don’t love watching shows about that stuff.

[Technomancer]

That's the rub, isn't it? "As we know them." I think that applies to most of what we know of pre-history. What do we really know about dinosaurs? All we have to go on is their fossilized skeletons. We make assumptions based on those old bones, but that's all they are. Assumptions. And assumptions can be wrong.

I mean the flying, fire-breathing creatures of myth. We can make some conclusions about the lives of dinosaurs based on the skeletons that are well grounded in fact and our understanding of prehistoric life has improved considerably since paleontology first became a serious discipline.

[Linksquest]

Ok... the thing is, none of us can 100% say that dragons were alive or not. No one can be positive they did exist (unless there is way more proof like the dinosaurs ^_^) but in turn no one can be positive that they did not exist.

We all can believe what we want to, i say they were real.

[Emanku]

This is a really nice discussion going on but I'd like to see where people go with some other lines of thought on dragons. Have fun. ^_^

I was thinking about the whole idea of dragons in relation to the Bible and was somewhat surprised by what I found. It seems that the only dragon in there is Satan. It's one of his most common descriptions. Could the dragons be a metaphor referring to the Devil? Or maybe Satan appeared to people in the form of a dragon. Think it might be one of those?

Then I took a look in the dictionary. What did the one I looked at have do say about the word 'Dragon'?
Dragon: A large snake or serpent.
That makes a lot of sense to me, considering the serpent in Genesis is most often interpereted as being Satan. What do you think?

Remembering one Biblical passage, I quickly delved back into the good book seeking insight. What I found was: the leviathin. In Job 41, God describes a very powerful, aquatic, scaly, fire-breathing creature. Could this animal (if it was/is real) be somehow tied to the dragon legends?

[termyt]

Well, the dragon is certainly a metaphor for evil in our legends and stories. A dark terror plagues the countryside and only a hero can rescue the good people of the land. That's a pretty common and simple plot device and dragons were a popular source for that dark terror for a time. It's also an easy tool for a story writer to use to set the proper mood. We all feel a sense of dread for our heroes when a dragon enters the scene.

I mean the flying, fire-breathing creatures of myth. We can make some conclusions about the lives of dinosaurs based on the skeletons that are well grounded in fact and our understanding of prehistoric life has improved considerably since paleontology first became a serious discipline.

Certainly, and one of those conclusions is that some of them could fly. Fire-breath is more conjecture, not unlike the conjecture that this species roamed in herds or that species hunted in packs. Any of them may also have breathed fire, or at least had the ability to spit venom that burned like fire.

[EireWolf]

Relating to Emanku's post: Certainly the dragon imagery in Revalation is negative and associated with evil. But the way God describes Leviathan in the book of Job, you'd think that maybe God took great joy and pride (in a godly sort of way) in this awesome and terrible creature. In fact, God seems to be saying that Leviathan is a testament to His unsurpassed power:

"If you lay a hand on him,

you will remember the struggle and never do it again!

Any hope of subduing him is false;

the mere sight of him is overpowering.

No one is fierce enough to rouse him.

Who then is able to stand against me?

Who has a claim against me that I must pay?

Everything under heaven belongs to me."

(Job 41:8-11)

[Yojimbo]

It's pretty much impossible that any humans ever had contact with any dinosaurs. Considering that the oldest modern human remains ever found were in Ethiopia and dated around 200,000 years old. And dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. And the oldest human ancestor remains found period date around 5.8 million years.

[Fsiphskilm]

i herd th

[Nate]

I think the fact that dragons are a staple of most civilizations that had no contact with each other proves (to me at least) that there must have been SOME truth behind those legends.

Dragons are awesome. Especially...

Well, I won't get into that. ^^;;

[Kisa]

Is this for real? Cool. I mean I knew there had to be dragons cause of myths and stuff, but I also thought they were probably just some type of dinosaur ^^

[Yojimbo]

i herd they found footsteps of humans and dinosaurs next to each other. Rumor Maybe.

But according to our Genesis maybe they co-exhisted together at some point in time, that's a whole new debate we won't get into.

I think they might have, with all the stories we hear, they coulnd't just be made up, I think all monsters come from somewhere.

Well unless carbon and argon dating lie then it just never happened.

[Nate]

Well unless carbon and argon dating lie then it just never happened.

Careful, yo...to some people on this site, them's debatin' words.

[Technomancer]

Regardless of dating though, we simply never find dinosaur fossils in the same strata as either human artifacts or large mammal fossils. The conclusion we must make is that dinosaurs were not contemporaneous with either humans or large mammals. IOW, their living forms can't be the basis for dragon myths (although their fossil remains could still be). Personally, I find the "psychological" theory that I alluded to earlier quite intriguing although I haven't had the time to investigate it much.

[Mi-Ru-Me]

Okay to people who believe in carbon dating It ant right at least not always two examples frome the same wolly mammoth two parts were dated a leg and the rest of it sepreatly the body dated 200,000 years the leg 10,000 years now that dosnt sound very accurate to me. second A monkey was killed for an experiment it was then burried and dug up 15 years later or some were around that they carboned dated it it said thes bones were more than 5000 years old. Now heres the deal whenever information is found that disproves what scintests believe there may be an article or two on it but then its burried. Like the time that darwin went and told every one that alot of his reasearch on evolution was wrong does any one hear aboput that any more no.Or like whenever ther seams to be a new car engine aor light bulb that works better than what we use now its bought out and shoved to the back of a closet some were. Thats the way our world works.

[termyt]

Well unless carbon and argon dating lie then it just never happened.

I do not argue your statement, it is very justifiable and can be backed with some evidence. However, I do question the certainty with which you utter it. Are you so sure of the veracity of our scientific dating methods that you will stand by such an absolute statement? Is there no room for error in your judgment? I'm not trying to pick on you or start a fight, it's just that there are very few things that I believe that I am willing to make that kind of statement about.

Science neither lies nor tells the truth. It simply presents evidence which then must be interpreted.

Carbon dating and the fossile record indicate that dinosaurs and man did not cohabitate, but are you certain, beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no other answer then the one just given?

My point has nothing to do with dragons or dinosaurs, so forgive me for going off topic. But I believe it's important that we choose carefully what we state with absolution. If you state both "Christ is God" and "Carbon-14 dating is beyond reproach" and latter statement is proved false; do you not also call into question your first statement?

[Yojimbo]

Of course nothing can be absolutely dead right proven with human science. Fine ya got me carbon dating isn't the most reliable method past a couple thousand years. Radioactive argon dating is more accurate beyond that though. But of course scientists have spent their lives trying to prove 2+2 equals 4.

But is it very likely that dinosaurs and human ancestors lived in the same time period? I doubt we would of survived very long. And I refuse to believe that just because every culture from the Chinese to the Anglo Saxons had some form of a "dragon" means they ever existed alongside humans. Fantasy flying, firebreathing, dragons are myths and legends. Draco means giant snake in Latin and there are giant snakes in places like Indonesia and India. A Roman probably had never seen a huge snake before and listening to some traveller tell ya about some terrifying creature the size of an elephant that would eat your children would be pretty convincing. When they were probably just big snakes like a thirty-foot Indian reticulated python, or lizards like a Komodo Dragon.

[Technomancer]

IScience neither lies nor tells the truth. It simply presents evidence which then must be interpreted.

Well no, this isn't really correct. Science is not a series of observations, or a loose-leaf collection of facts. Instead, science is at its core, a methodology for investigating the natural world. This method starts with observations certainly, but part of the method is building an explanatory/predictive model of what causes the observations. Of course, not all models/interpretations are equal. As a result the criterion of falsifibility is crucial to the scientific method. IOW, the proposed model should be testable in that it can predict the behaviour of the system in the sense of predicting a set of observations under particular conditions. If it can't do this, then the model is falsified and must be either revised or discarded.

Needless to say the models/theories that enjoy widespread acceptance are those that have met this criterion of testability (and been tested successfuly!). Those theories that have been rejected are those that have failed to do so.

Carbon dating and the fossile record indicate that dinosaurs and man did not cohabitate, but are you certain, beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no other answer then the one just given?

What constitutes a reasonable doubt? So far no other explanations have proven to be consistent with the data.

[quote]
My point has nothing to do with dragons or dinosaurs, so forgive me for going off topic. But I believe it's important that we choose carefully what we state with absolution. If you state both "Christ is God" and "Carbon-14 dating is beyond reproach" and latter statement is proved false]

I really don't see how it can. The two statements are logically independant, at least as they have been written here. Whether the first statement is true or not has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the second and vice versa.

[c-girl]

They were actually talking about if they found a dragons body. >^^<

[termyt]

Well no, this isn't really correct. Science is not a series of observations, or a loose-leaf collection of facts. Instead, science is at its core, a methodology for investigating the natural world. This method starts with observations certainly, but part of the method is building an explanatory/predictive model of what causes the observations. Of course, not all models/interpretations are equal. As a result the criterion of falsifibility is crucial to the scientific method. IOW, the proposed model should be testable in that it can predict the behaviour of the system in the sense of predicting a set of observations under particular conditions. If it can't do this, then the model is falsified and must be either revised or discarded.

I don’t find your explanation at odds with my statement, except perhaps, you are looking at science in it’s purest form, where I am also injecting how it is used by us.

Needless to say the models/theories that enjoy widespread acceptance are those that have met this criterion of testability (and been tested successfuly!). Those theories that have been rejected are those that have failed to do so.

This isn’t really correct, either. There’s a lot more to science then just investigating and testing theories about the universe around us. This is the danger of science for the lay-person. It’s easy to fall into believing this or that conclusion because a scientific report backs it. The truth is, science is consistently used by those wanting to prove their own theories instead of being used to form the theories in the first place.

Caffeine is bad for you, caffeine is good for you. Alcohol is bad, but red wine is good – oh wait, beer is now good for you, too. Many of the theories that enjoy widespread acceptance are those that fit best with the way we want to perceive the world regardless of the merits of the “scientificâ€

[Technomancer]

This isn’t really correct, either. There’s a lot more to science then just investigating and testing theories about the universe around us. This is the danger of science for the lay-person. It’s easy to fall into believing this or that conclusion because a scientific report backs it. The truth is, science is consistently used by those wanting to prove their own theories instead of being used to form the theories in the first place.

Yes, scientists do use scientific knowledge/methods to advance their own theories. Most probably have an attachment to them. However irrespective of how cherished the theory is, it must bow to the data]That[/i] is the sort of acceptance that matters in science, not whether it finds favour among the general public.

[quote]
Caffeine is bad for you, caffeine is good for you. Alcohol is bad, but red wine is good – oh wait, beer is now good for you, too. Many of the theories that enjoy widespread acceptance are those that fit best with the way we want to perceive the world regardless of the merits of the “scientificâ€

[DragonSlayer]

Did anybody watch the behind the scenes after the Dragon special?

[Noodles]

I think the fact that dragons are a staple of most civilizations that had no contact with each other proves (to me at least) that there must have been SOME truth behind those legends.

From a Christian standpoint remember that humans were once equal until they were seperated by God after the events at the Tower of Babel. The dragon myth could of been created before God seperated them so when the new cultures were forming the dragons were still in their beliefs so thats probably how it was spread to all cultures.

[mitsuki lover]

Hey Guys,remember this was an entirely fictional account that asked the
question:WHAT IF DRAGONS HAD BEEN REAL?
The whole point being what if a REAL dragon had been found buried in an ice cave what could scientists learn from it?
Of course dragons were never real in the first place.They are only a part of myth and folk legend.

[Yojimbo]

Seriously...everyone's saying get back on the subject and I'm like the subject of what? That dragons are myths and this show never said they were real infact it said quite the opposite.

[Sesshoumaru]

ok... am i the only one who is completely thrilled beyond belief that they actually found a dragon's body partially decayed in an ice cave!!! The special on Animal Planet is awsome and im def taping it.

Am I the only one who LOVES DRAGONS!!! DRAGONS ARE AWSOMEZORZ!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! *Cries*

[Heart of Sword]

why haven't skeletons or any other evidence been discovered before?

Either because of what Volt said, or maybe we have found skeletons. Maybe pteranodon could breathe fire...who knows?

Another thing I like on Animal Planet is Animal X...we should have a thread about that...it's totally freaky.

Oh, and not to rain on anybody's parade, but they didn't really find a body. They made the show about what would happen IF they found one. However I do believe in dragons. The Bible talks about the Leviathan. By the way, the "hot breath" thing...the Bible speaks of it pouring smoke out its nostrils.

I believe in dragons. Satan takes the form of one, too. Why take the form of something that doesn't exist?

[White Raven]

Either because of what Volt said, or maybe we have found skeletons. Maybe pteranodon could breathe fire...who knows?

Another thing I like on Animal Planet is Animal X...we should have a thread about that...it's totally freaky.

Oh, and not to rain on anybody's parade, but they didn't really find a body. They made the show about what would happen IF they found one. However I do believe in dragons. The Bible talks about the Leviathan. By the way, the "hot breath" thing...the Bible speaks of it pouring smoke out its nostrils.

I believe in dragons. Satan takes the form of one, too. Why take the form of something that doesn't exist?

I said this before.

This might help.
They made the show up as if they found a body.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/custom/aetv/sfldragonsmar20,0,3102473.story?coll=sfla-features-aetv

[termyt]

You're confusing several things here- actual science as it is done by scientists and how it is reported in the popular press or understood by the public at large.

I don't think I'm confused. I understand the scientific method well and it is a fantastic tool. It's just that I don't think you can divorce the method itself from the way it is used or misused by those with ulterior motives when speaking on topics in a forum such as this one. Some folks reading these posts do not understand the difference between results found by using the method correctly and results found by misusing the method.

I apologize if this seems off topic to anyone. But if it is, I'm not sure what is the true topic aside from an interesting mockumentary on dragons.