could 'dragons' have been intell. dinosaurs?

[ningishzida]

Virtually every human culture believed in some kind of dragon. The anthropologist, D. E. Jones, in his book "An instinct for Dragons" believes they are a composite monster formed of the creatures we feared the most. Carl Sagan believed 'they' might be latent memories of dinosaurs seen by our primitive mammalian ancestors.

But the problem is, the dragon stories were not just age old myths. The most repectable sort of people, throughout human history have actually reported seeing dragons, and virtually every human religion has had benificient dragon 'gods' that educated and nurtured early man. These beliefs contradict the notion that these dragons were simply a composite of those creatures we feared.

Nor are dragons really 'composites' as people pretend. There exists in the fossil record pterosaurs with toothed lizard like heads, leathery wings, taloned feet and long serpentine tails that anyone not familiar with palaeontology would say is a clearly a mythic 'dragon'.

Yes, dinosaur bones probably reaffirmed the dragons were real to those who did not see the living animals, but we have contemporary accounts as late as 15th century Wales where the whole country was terrorized by a LIVING flying reptile, (the Gwiber), that was finally driven away by determined bands of longbowen. And of course, all over the world we STILL have hundreds of sightings of large, apparently reptilian creatures, some so 'real' that scientists have assigned them names and nations have established laws to protect them.

Of course, lack of any post KT fossils of something that could be a dragon is the greatest evidence they do not exist, yet if intelligent creatures that did not want their presence known, it would be easy to elude us, and hide all traces of their remains, even consuming them.

Dragon Slaying stories are probably all nonsense, for common sense dictates their absurdity. But these stories were created because dragons were commonly seen, greatly feared, and such stories allayed fears of these creatures. Interestingly, dragon sightings/predations dropped as firearms began to be developed, apparently one human weapon these creatures apparently feared, and this is logical, for a musket will penetrate armor that would deflect any spear or arrow.

Today we call our dragons "lake monsters" and "sea serpents", and have recoreded their 'voices' and the size of their bodies with sonor. We still receive eyewitness accounts, and even photographs, though the creatures seem so wary that rarely are they taken at close distances.

So are dragons real? Even science supports rather than dismisses their existence. For example, one of the arguments against 'flying dragons' is that 'no reptile that large could possibly fly', yet now we know that a reptile large enough to swallow a human whole, and that has the largest skull of any known land vertebrate, did indeed exist. Millions of these pterosaurs' once existed, yet we only have fragmentary remains of only one animal. So to say, 'dragons cannot exist because we have found no fossils of them' is ridiculous. New dinosaurs that once existed in the millions have still not been discovered.

Half of the world's population still worship a 'dragon god' though most do not realize this 'god' was originally a flame spewing, winged, virgin eating, gold hoarding dragon, just as their holy scriptures plainly state.

(I decided to create this thread so Crazycrowman would have an appropriate place to cut & paste his views on this without derailing other threads. ;D)

[kuni]

Yeah, I don't buy it at all.

The earliest dragons are almost always oversized snakes, or sometimes composite snake+crocodiles, depending on your region.

I think the most logical explanation is a human fear of snakes switched around into an object of worship(most human predators got venerated as gods), occasionally supplemented by large fossil bones. Not saying there couldn't be some sort of cryptid involved (though the "intelligence" spin you've used in other threads is a bit much), but until I see a body, I'll pass.

[Dinotoyforum]

I'm with Kuni. As romantic as real dragons would be and I completely understand the pull of the idea, a more mundane scenario is far more likely.

[Dinotoyforum]

I don't want to be too harsh, but I detected at least five different logical fallacies in your post, which should say something about the strength of your argument. ;D If you don't know this means, they are basically invalid arguments, as explained here - www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp.

I know it is not terribly useful, but the ones I spotted were -

"The most repectable sort of people, throughout human history have actually reported seeing dragons"
- argument from authority.

These beliefs contradict the notion that these dragons were simply a composite of those creatures we feared.
- non sequitur.

if intelligent creatures that did not want their presence known, it would be easy to elude us, and hide all traces of their remains, even consuming them.
- Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning

Interestingly, dragon sightings/predations dropped as firearms began to be developed
- Confusing association with causation

We still receive eyewitness accounts, and even photographs, though the creatures seem so wary that rarely are they taken at close distances.
- Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning

to say, 'dragons cannot exist because we have found no fossils of them' is ridiculous.
- Straw man

[ningishzida]

Dec 17, 2008 16:27:10 GMT kuni said:

Yeah, I don't buy it at all.

The earliest dragons are almost always oversized snakes, or sometimes composite snake+crocodiles, depending on your region.

I think the most logical explanation is a human fear of snakes switched around into an object of worship(most human predators got venerated as gods), occasionally supplemented by large fossil bones. Not saying their couldn't be some sort of cryptid involved (though the "intelligence" spin you've used in other threads is a bit much), but until I see a body, I'll pass.

I'm not sure what sources you are using, but exempting things like aborignal rock art of the rainbow serpent, the earliest depictions of true, long necked, winged, claw footed , distinctly reptilian dragons from an ancient civization, go back at least to the 3d Millenia BC in Sumeria, the cradle of civilization. A good example are the two 'heaven guardian' dragons carved on the Gudea libation vase now in the Louvre.

It is also interesting to note that truly ancient Chinese art depicts winged, less elongated dragons that are very similar to Sumerian and Classical styles. Chinese dragon lore actually states that the earliest dragons needed actual wings to fly.

[crazycrowman]

O-o Hey, Ning....you also go by the handle "Draconic chronicler" various other web sources yes ?

I am almost certian I have read some of the things you have written before, like over on here....
www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?act=Search&CODE=simpleresults&sid=9412541b47e94521b95e45677025897d&highlite=Draconic

[sid]

As much as i like dragons,mythology and fantastic creatures in general...I don't believe they existed at all,sorry

[Dinotoyforum]

Dec 17, 2008 17:23:56 GMT ningishzida said:

Dec 17, 2008 16:27:10 GMT kuni said:

Yeah, I don't buy it at all.

The earliest dragons are almost always oversized snakes, or sometimes composite snake+crocodiles, depending on your region.

I think the most logical explanation is a human fear of snakes switched around into an object of worship(most human predators got venerated as gods), occasionally supplemented by large fossil bones. Not saying their couldn't be some sort of cryptid involved (though the "intelligence" spin you've used in other threads is a bit much), but until I see a body, I'll pass.

I'm not sure what sources you are using, but exempting things like aborignal rock art of the rainbow serpent, the earliest depictions of true, long necked, winged, claw footed , distinctly reptilian dragons from an ancient civization, go back at least to the 3d Millenia BC in Sumeria, the cradle of civilization. A good example are the two 'heaven guardian' dragons carved on the Gudea libation vase now in the Louvre.

It is also interesting to note that truly ancient Chinese art depicts winged, less elongated dragons that are very similar to Sumerian and Classical styles. Chinese dragon lore actually states that the earliest dragons needed actual wings to fly.

That's a brand new logical fallacy - the argument from antiquity.

[crazycrowman]

"So are dragons real? Even science supports rather than dismisses their existence."

Only in name, as figments of the human imagination, and in the misidentification of real animals - Sure the Komodo "Dragon", Bearded "Dragon", Frilled "Dragon", etc are real creatures, but are lizards, and dragons only in title. And dinosaur/woolly rhino fossils/dinosaur trackways that were misidentified as being the remains of dragons by people who did not know better are real, but still, are dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures, not "dragons". The "scientific support" of dragons ends there.

www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=79181&st=105
On another related note, out of curiosity, what other books do you have out and what programs were you involved with on the history channel ? I saw one on dragons some time ago, were you on that ?

[ningishzida]

Dec 17, 2008 18:01:24 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

Dec 17, 2008 17:23:56 GMT ningishzida said:

I'm not sure what sources you are using, but exempting things like aborignal rock art of the rainbow serpent, the earliest depictions of true, long necked, winged, claw footed , distinctly reptilian dragons from an ancient civization, go back at least to the 3d Millenia BC in Sumeria, the cradle of civilization. A good example are the two 'heaven guardian' dragons carved on the Gudea libation vase now in the Louvre.

It is also interesting to note that truly ancient Chinese art depicts winged, less elongated dragons that are very similar to Sumerian and Classical styles. Chinese dragon lore actually states that the earliest dragons needed actual wings to fly.

That's a brand new logical fallacy - the argument from antiquity.

Many ancient peoples were far more sophisticated than the general public give them credit for. The ancient greeks calculated the circumferance of the earth to a remarkably close degree and constructed mechanical astronomical computers that boggle the mind. They were familar with many different species of marine animals, yet also acknowledged as living creatures, long necked, distinctly reptilian creatures usually in the water but also believed to inhabit the land. Called "Ketos", they are essentially a "sea dragon". Pliny the Elder, a naturalist, and admiral in the Roman Navy, acknowledged their existence in his writings (but then, nobody back then doubted their existence, they were as real as any lion or elephant.

[ningishzida]

Dec 17, 2008 16:58:26 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

I don't want to be too harsh, but I detected at least five different logical fallacies in your post, which should say something about the strength of your argument. ;D If you don't know this means, they are basically invalid arguments, as explained here - www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp.

I know it is not terribly useful, but the ones I spotted were -

"The most repectable sort of people, throughout human history have actually reported seeing dragons"
- argument from authority.

These beliefs contradict the notion that these dragons were simply a composite of those creatures we feared.
- non sequitur.

if intelligent creatures that did not want their presence known, it would be easy to elude us, and hide all traces of their remains, even consuming them.
- Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning

Interestingly, dragon sightings/predations dropped as firearms began to be developed
- Confusing association with causation

We still receive eyewitness accounts, and even photographs, though the creatures seem so wary that rarely are they taken at close distances.
- Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning

to say, 'dragons cannot exist because we have found no fossils of them' is ridiculous.
- Straw man

It must be reassuring to skeptics to have that 'guide', but the truth of the matter is that all of those statements are true, and while they cannot prove the existence of dragons, they do lend credence to the possiblity that such a creature may have once existed, and may still.

[kuni]

Don't diss on a list of logical fallacies, Ning -- it doesn't help your case....and your statement is once again a logical fallacy.

[sbell]

Dec 17, 2008 21:16:29 GMT kuni said:

Don't diss on a list of logical fallacies, Ning -- it doesn't help your case....and your statement is once again a logical fallacy.

Does anyone here feel trolled yet? Seriously, at the moment this thread started to go from "Dragons are inspirations from dinosaurs" into "Dragons are real for varied reasons", this should be put into a Crytpozoology forum.

Fact is, there is much going on here. Calling the Skeptoid alert when someone rationally calls out the issues with varying arguments is one warning--if you really want to believe in dragons, go find one. That is evidence. Positing existence based on poor arguments, hostile rebuttals and fallacies is pointless and wastes everyone's time.

Yeah, many of us think dragons are cool. But that doesn't mean they have to be real. I think Chimaera, Griffins, and Sphinx are cool too--they even show up in ancient myths. But no one seriously contends that they existed; they were part of metaphors and stories, nothing more.

As with many cryptozoology threads, I foresee this one getting locked soon.

[kuni]

I don't think Ning is trolling specifically, as I suspect he does believe in the stuff(whereas a troll would just be pulling our legs and laughing about it), but...it's still a cryptid thread with little to no scientific content. On the other hand, his "dinosaur lips" thread has been all kinds of interesting, so I'm not sorry he stopped by the forum.

I think it's pretty easy to make a case for this thread being locked, or at least moved into General, away from the more scientific discussions.

[crazycrowman]

I have seen many intelligent dinosaurs, and possess many actual photographs of intelligent dinosaurs


I don't know that I have ever heard them called dragons

[stoneage]

;D Well if he thinks his statements proves Dragons exist.Then I think that is just more proof that Dinosaurs didn't have lips! ;D

[tetonbabydoll]

Are dragons--as portrayed in classic myths--real?

Um, NO. NO. NO. I mean to say NO!

Ok, now that that is out of my system....
I love dragons. I do. But they as a species were not real. The legends may have been inspired by various critters through the years, but these animals were likely just exotic animals, then unknown, that we would consider "commonplace" these days. Much like animals like narwhales and rhinos helped inspire the unicorn myths. There is no scientific evidence one way or the other for the cryptids. That is why that thread got closed. The arguments got heated, and personal. It will happen here too.

You really don't seem to like being disagreed with. You state these "facts" about dragon Gods with the same certainty you used in your other two threads. When others disagree, you act as if you think we're idiots.

Also, how many dragon threads do you intend to post? You have managed to bring them up in your introductions thread, McFarlane dragons thread, and of course, here. This should have been in general at least.

[Dinotoyforum]

As long as we all keep our heads, this thread is fine

[Dinotoyforum]

Dec 17, 2008 21:03:17 GMT ningishzida said:

Dec 17, 2008 16:58:26 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

I don't want to be too harsh, but I detected at least five different logical fallacies in your post, which should say something about the strength of your argument. ;D If you don't know this means, they are basically invalid arguments, as explained here - www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp.

I know it is not terribly useful, but the ones I spotted were -

"The most repectable sort of people, throughout human history have actually reported seeing dragons"
- argument from authority.

These beliefs contradict the notion that these dragons were simply a composite of those creatures we feared.
- non sequitur.

if intelligent creatures that did not want their presence known, it would be easy to elude us, and hide all traces of their remains, even consuming them.
- Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning

Interestingly, dragon sightings/predations dropped as firearms began to be developed
- Confusing association with causation

We still receive eyewitness accounts, and even photographs, though the creatures seem so wary that rarely are they taken at close distances.
- Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning

to say, 'dragons cannot exist because we have found no fossils of them' is ridiculous.
- Straw man

It must be reassuring to skeptics to have that 'guide', but the truth of the matter is that all of those statements are true, and while they cannot prove the existence of dragons, they do lend credence to the possiblity that such a creature may have once existed, and may still.

The fallacies are present whether you are a skeptic or not - they are intrinsic to logic. Being a skeptic just helps you to spot them - I'm just saying. That skepticism you are applying to theropod reconstructions, for example, is healthy, so you clearly have a skeptic within you. Why not apply it to dragons too?

Edit - and while some of those statements may well be true (some are, and I'm not saying they are not [that's a straw man by the way ]), it does not follow that dragons exist. That's the fallacy.

[therizinosaurus]

Dec 17, 2008 22:46:34 GMT sbell said:

Does anyone here feel trolled yet? Seriously, at the moment this thread started to go from "Dragons are inspirations from dinosaurs" into "Dragons are real for varied reasons", this should be put into a Crytpozoology forum.

I've got one set up right here, sbell:
cryptozoologyforum.proboards100.com

;D