|
Post by ningishzida on Dec 18, 2008 2:50:54 GMT
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. It would be incorrect to lump ancient dragon accounts (which in their depiction often resemble dinosaurs or marine reptiles), with the more fantastic creatures of classical mythology. I know of no accounts where contemporary ancient peoples claimed they saw sphinxes , chimeras, or cyclops and the like. Some believed the ancient legends, but believed these animals existed in the distant past, and they too, found fossils and even identified mastadon skulls with the cyclops. But when it came to 'dragons', these were reported as living, breathing animals of their own times, and some, with long necks and an aquatic lifestyle are not unlike sightings of lake and sea monsters on up through the 21st century. These accounts were made men who were the closest thing to 'scientists' in their time.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 18, 2008 2:57:15 GMT
Unicorns were thought to be as real as dragons. They often ground up Bellemnite fossiles claiming they were unicorn horns, I believe. And the chinese ground up "dragon bones", in reality, dino fossiles. How are dragons any less fantastic than other mythological creatures. And what about elves, faeries, trolls, dwarves and the like? Leprichans? They were all considered real at one time or another. Flying, fire breathing intelligent dragons are no more believable than any other of these creatures. And, just your saying so does not make it true......
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Dec 18, 2008 3:12:48 GMT
"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=105On 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 ? While it is true a fossil wooly rhino skull was misidentified as the skull of a dragon, it is also true that people all over the world reported seeing 'live' dragons as well, some annals claiming hundreds of people seeing the same creature, such as the Welsh incident. People were hired in towns to burn bones day and night because the smoke was believed to keep dragons away. Why all of this hysteria, unless there was some kernel of truth behind these stories? People still see 'dragons' today, only few dare to use that word anymore. Now they are lake monsters, thunderbirds, pterodactyls, etc. As mentioned previously, the Ancient Greeks saw the bones of mastadons and thought they were titans and cyclops that died centuries earlier, and never claimed they lived in their times, but those same people feared living dragons because they were still being seen in their own times. There is a big difference. I had corresponded with the "dragon expert' for one of those shows, but I was not personally involved. The History Channel and related type shows I have been involved with are all related to military history, though they do range back to classical Greece and Rome (we shot a '300 Spartan' documentary in Malta), all the way up to WWII themes. My books are all related to military history, as are published papers (weapon-related archaeology). I can tell you my book titles by PM if you are interested. I suppose what began the dragon research, was my longtime interest in both the ancient and medieval worlds, plus my interest in dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by dinonikes on Dec 18, 2008 3:14:08 GMT
This thread seems like it belongs on a site dealing with bigfoot, loch ness monster, ufos and the like. It doesn't seem appropriate to discussions about dinosaurs. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 18, 2008 3:18:04 GMT
;D Have you ever heard of Mass Hysteria? What about the Salem Witch Trials? I know you think there really were witches with supernatural powers! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Dec 18, 2008 3:23:34 GMT
Unicorns were thought to be as real as dragons. They often ground up Bellemnite fossiles claiming they were unicorn horns, I believe. And the chinese ground up "dragon bones", in reality, dino fossiles. How are dragons any less fantastic than other mythological creatures. And what about elves, faeries, trolls, dwarves and the like? Leprichans? They were all considered real at one time or another. Flying, fire breathing intelligent dragons are no more believable than any other of these creatures. And, just your saying so does not make it true...... Entirely different. Nobody claimed to actually see the living unicorns except viking traders who hunted narwhales and claimed their horns belonged to unicorns. On the other hand, every human cultures claimed to actually see dragons. And dragons are very plausible, for there are fossil pterosaurs that are virtually the 'spitting image' of medieval dragon depictions. Dwarves really exist. Trolls may have originally been based on a malformed, but large person. Barbarian peoples with little technology believed only 'elves' could make articles they found from higher advanced cultures. But not only did cultures all over the world record seeing live dragons, but mankind is still seeing quite possibly the same creatures today, only we no longer use the D-word. Some are even protected species, like Champ and some norwegian dragons. On 'sea dragon' has a scientific name and paper published on it by a scientist. But fairies and leprecauns? No. No scientific papers, no governmental protection.... you have to be something 'real' like a dragon for those.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 18, 2008 3:28:34 GMT
Sorry. You've lost me. I do not want to be rude. So, I will just bow out of this now. We will just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Dec 18, 2008 3:36:13 GMT
This thread seems like it belongs on a site dealing with bigfoot, loch ness monster, ufos and the like. It doesn't seem appropriate to discussions about dinosaurs. Just my opinion. Many people, including scientists of the past have speculated that dragon legends may be based on dinosaurs that had survived extinction. Although in truth, more of these accounts concern flying or marine reptiles rather than true dinosaurs. But then again, this forum is about those animals too. Could it only be coincidence that modern reports of lake monsters fit the same description as the long necked reptilian sea dragons that the Greeks and Romans believed were real creatures of their own times.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Dec 18, 2008 3:40:38 GMT
;D Have you ever heard of Mass Hysteria? What about the Salem Witch Trials? I know you think there really were witches with supernatural powers! ;D Why would you "know" that? I don't believe 'witches' were ever brought up here at all. They don't come close to looking like a dinosaur. Superpowers like the US and Russia have seriously studied psychic and paranormal activities that our ancestors may have thought were "witchcraft".
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 18, 2008 3:44:37 GMT
This thread seems like it belongs on a site dealing with bigfoot, loch ness monster, ufos and the like. It doesn't seem appropriate to discussions about dinosaurs. Just my opinion. Many people, including scientists of the past have speculated that dragon legends may be based on dinosaurs that had survived extinction. Although in truth, more of these accounts concern flying or marine reptiles rather than true dinosaurs. But then again, this forum is about those animals too. Could it only be coincidence that modern reports of lake monsters fit the same description as the long necked reptilian sea dragons that the Greeks and Romans believed were real creatures of their own times. ;D What scientist (name) says that Dragons were based on Dinosaurs that survived extinction? It could be coincidence but the more important point is that there is no solid evidence that can be shown that there are lake monsters! ;D
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Dec 18, 2008 3:50:11 GMT
Dwarves really exist. Trolls may have originally been based on a malformed, but large person. Barbarian peoples with little technology believed only 'elves' could make articles they found from higher advanced cultures. But not only did cultures all over the world record seeing live dragons, but mankind is still seeing quite possibly the same creatures today, only we no longer use the D-word. Some are even protected species, like Champ and some norwegian dragons. On 'sea dragon' has a scientific name and paper published on it by a scientist. But fairies and leprecauns? No. No scientific papers, no governmental protection.... you have to be something 'real' like a dragon for those. Ok, as politely as possible, you really need to go back over your logic man. You just explained away trolls rationally, with the clear use of occam's razor so why are you incapable for doing the same EXACT thing for dragons ? There are very common, very rational explanations for "dragons" and they have been addressed. Just like bigfoots. Mankind is still seeing these creatures ? Mankind is still seeing Elvis too. Mankind does alot of really screwy stuff. Mankind is still blowing up buildings, killing other people and starting wars in the name of invisible deitys. There is no more evidence to support dragons in the sense you are pushing at then there is for it to support unicorns. Unicorns are actually more plausible in many ways then dragons because they are just an equuid with a growth sticking from their heads. Cancerous tissue may make one of those one day....dragons on the other hand.... Pterosaurs - Hornbills, fruit bats, large sea birds. Dragons - large lizards/crocs, misidentified animals, misidentified fossils, ect. Bigfoots - Misidentified bears, hoaxers (all of these can be hoaxers as well) Add a "believer" to those above and you have your dragons and pterosaurs and bigfeet and something known as "cryptozoology. Add a scientist to the mix and you get booing old zoology.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Dec 18, 2008 3:50:19 GMT
;D Have you ever heard of Mass Hysteria? What about the Salem Witch Trials? I know you think there really were witches with supernatural powers! ;D Why would you "know" that? I don't believe 'witches' were ever brought up here at all. They don't come close to looking like a dinosaur. Superpowers like the US and Russia have seriously studied psychic and paranormal activities that our ancestors may have thought were "witchcraft". ;D Okay name the scientific studys that the US and Russia conducted? I'd also like the names of the scientist involved? ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 18, 2008 3:51:30 GMT
Yes, it could. And, this forum is dedicated to dinosaur toy collecting, not dragons. There is no direct evidence for Nessie or any other such creature. All the video and photo evidence is blurry and inconclusive. The sonar readings only indicate a large mass under the water. Not the type of mass. Yes, it is reported that the mass was a living animal moving at speed against the current. Fair enough. But, those "findings" are also seriously disputed by many scientists.
There are no modern documented sightings that provide indisputable proof either way. There are no carcasses of any of these animals. Even before we had video of living giant squid ( Krakens? ), we had remains in whale stomachs, scars on the whales, and carcasses washed up on beaches. So that "legend" was long proven based in reality. The only dispute there was the size they may have reached.
No video, especially digital exists for "dragons" I have never seen one on the news. I have never heard of any scientist claim they are a real species. The Nat Geo does not fund expeditions to document their behavior. None of this exists. Just because learned men of the past believed something, does not make it so. Or, does the solar system still revolve around us? Do you believe in evolution? That is a fairly recent scientific theory, still disputed today. Those almost scientists you like to quote pretty much did not believe in evolution. Were they wrong about that, but right about inteligent, magical, flying, firebreathing, maiden devouring demi-god reptiles living in secret amongst us?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Dec 18, 2008 4:07:23 GMT
You know what? This thread has begun to reach the absurd maximum. Calling dragons 'real' and 'scientifically valid' is pretty much beyond rational.
And I do believe that there have been many coherent, well thought out refutations that are not answered, but instead responded to with further special pleadings and other distractions.
As such, I am locking this thread. Ning, you are free to go to a cryptozoology forum and make your claims, but even with my limited experience among them, cryptos tend to views things like dragons as mythical rather than potentially cryptozoological. This is a silly topic and fills the board with nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Dec 18, 2008 10:01:47 GMT
I just unlocked the thread while everyone is still so polite, so that we can all have our closing statements on the matter if we wish. I'll relock the thread later on though, these sorts of topics are known to get out of hand Personally I agree with Teton - I'm happy to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Dec 18, 2008 10:11:12 GMT
In the end, I think that is all we can do. With this, and the feathered/non-feathered dino topics, it is a wash. We all have our beliefs, and we have pretty much all stated them No amount of....discussion will change either sides minds, and there comes a point where it is just arguing for argument's sake. there is little point, and no way for either side to conclusively 'win" their point.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Dec 18, 2008 10:17:44 GMT
Well, I am not trying to argue, but I feel the need to clarify here. There is a big difference between dinosaurs having feathers, and birds being dinosaurs and the are "mystery dragons floating about the universe".
Birds being a type of dinosaur, and the representation of feathers on the fossil species found WITH feathers are scientific facts - none of those are opinions.
Everything I have "claimed" about feathered dinosaurs is supported by science as factual information. "Belief" has nothing to do with it. Arguing the contrary is like claiming there is proof for real live dragons.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Dec 18, 2008 10:22:03 GMT
Now Ning can have the last post, and we can call it a day.
|
|
|
Post by ningishzida on Dec 19, 2008 1:00:24 GMT
I find it very interesting how this topic could meet with such hostility, even by people who apparently are moderators.
But like it or not,
Governments have passed laws to protect creatures described as giant reptiles, and in many different, advanced countries. If real, these would almost certainly be the same 'gaint reptiles' our ancestors called 'dragons'.
Real scientists have published papers on these unknown animals and assigned them scientific names, aand pulbished their descriptions in scientific journals.
Scientific expeditions are still funded to learn more about these animals. They will continue to be as well.
Numerous scentists believe they are real creatures. They do not call them 'dragons' due to the ridicule of ignorant people, but it is obvious that if the creatures are real, they would be the same animals our ancestors saw, and called dragons.
Scientists have recorded echolocation in a locations known for a giant reptilian cryptid, that are unlike any known animal.
Literally hundreds of lakes around the world have had sightings of creatures usually described as reptilian and have a characteristic long neck unlike any known reptile today, but consistent with the universal description of dragons..
Most of the places where reptilian 'monsters' are reported, are connected with 'dragon' sightings in earlier times.
Millions of people in the orient still believe in dragons and probably always will. And yes, they also know about dinosaurs now..
The majority of humans in the world today profess faiths in which dragons are acknowledged to be real entities.
So here we have a certain few 'dinosaur toy collectors' thinking this topic is 'silly' , when in fact, it is taken very seriously by governments and scientists, and the faiths of billions of people, probably more so than toy dinosaurs are.
And the irony is, several people here also state they collect toy dragons as well, but should not talk about dragons. But apparently it is okay to talk about toy Wooly Mammoths on the same dinosaur forums.
Crazy Crow, as for unicorns, I am surpised you don't "get it". I know of NO medieval or ancient accounts of people ever claiming they saw unicorns even if you think they are more plausible creatures than dragons. On the other hand, there are thousands of dragon sightings, some by quite notable personalities, like Pliny, "father" of modern science, Herodatus, Marco Polo, etc. Even Leonardo Da Vinci made a very technical drawing of a dragon, almost as if it were based on a real creature he was familiar with. You have a good knowledge of animals, but this is one subject you have shown you know very little about.
Sbell, an aquatic creature which a scientist described as probably reptilian and looks much like a Chinese dragon has been given a scientific name, a published paper in a scientific journal, adnd if I am not mistaken is protected by the Canadian government. Is it just the word 'dragon' that bothers you so much? People who know far more about dinosaurs than you takes this 'dragon' very seriously.
Teton, please don't degrade real scientists simply because you disagree with them. Also, the scientists in question do believe in evolution as do I. This has nothing to do with Christian 'young earth" creationists as you seem to be hinting at. Quite the contrary, these people vehemently disagree with many of my point. And despite your claims, there are lots of photos and video of lake monsters and 'sea serpents' that quite logically, are the same 'dragons' reported in the same places centuries ago. Yes, many are taken at great distances, as to be expected if these are predatory creatures with acute senses as so many account describe them.
Dinotoyforum, thank you for behaving like a responsible adult, and not 'caving in' to the demands of certain people here. It is unfortunate that certain people supposedly interested in dinosaurs (or at least toy ones), have absolutely no interest in a serious discussion of living, dinsosaur like creatures which scientists, and millions or regular people, believe are still alive today.
Methinks some people here take their toys, (and themselves), far too seriously.
|
|