Do Dragons exist?

[MonteCristo]

Well...?

[MonteCristo]

Close-Up

[novoAlias]

hmm looks like a fake, look at the claws/finger ends, it looks to solid to have been skin. if it really is real.. then w00t is all i can say! clone it :)

[zortech]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

It's a fake, or maybe it's a mutated lizard or something. But it looks really cool! :cool:

I don't think that it's real, because someone would have found bones of them before. They never found something dragonlike, but they found one in a garage? Hmm....confusing....

Lol, as Blackwolf said. A real living one would be cool. I always wanted to see how they move, eat..

[Daniel]

well, obviously it's a fake...

I mean hell, they sure would of found out if it was wax or rubber! Jeez, it would of taken em less than a minute to pry open that lid to see if it was indeed organic.

[Fusion]

*sneeze* Photoshop *sneeze*

That looks kinda cool but from what ive seen with what photoshop can actually do.......I don't believe nothing anymore.

But actually reptiles do have claws like that. When they look "dead" their skin above the claws curl up.......but still.

[Ironbuket]

Hmm... dont the eye sockets sink into things when they die...
Even if it was a Dragon?

The artist made a mistake :p

[novoAlias]

thats just perception, if u had dragon skin that may not happen =/ if its real it may look fake because of our perceptions anyway, the real thing might exist but would we recognise it?

[Vitor]

As Fusion said, from what i've seen that is possible to do with digital aplications I don't belive much things i see :roll:

But on the other hand, this one look good, actually really good. Maybe it was a kind of a lizard before, with wings, but (due to Darwin's Origin of Species theory) it lost them. And now it's just a commom lizard...

[Ironbuket]

Well, if dragons did exist. Ones like this didnt IMO

Because: It has 6 limbs. How many other species (excluding insects which this is not) have 6 limbs? Answer: None. If this creature ever existed it would have had to evolve from 6 footed into 4 footed and 2 wings. Where are the 6 footed ones that didnt develop wings?

I think theres 2 questions here:

1) Is this a hoax? YES
2) Are there such things as Dragons? Maybe, but not looking like this

[Daniel]

common guys!!!!!!!!

the article says they don't even KNOW if it's organic or rubber or wax!!! You really think they would of printed an article and not have opened the damn jar??? If there were any chance it were real, scientists would of opened it right away!!! lol

[MonteCristo]

Yeah I think it's a fake too guys. It certainly ain't photoshop. But Still I think it's cool anyhow. :D

[il_paulio]

maybe its a mutated winged reptile. U have them on some indonesian islands i think and those are reptiles with wings with which they can fly a little bit :) Prolly one of those . If we had dragons they would've been found already, and mankind knowing extinct too

[Ironbuket]

Originally posted by il_paulio
maybe its a mutated winged reptile. U have them on some indonesian islands i think and those are reptiles with wings with which they can fly a little bit :) Prolly one of those . If we had dragons they would've been found already, and mankind knowing extinct too

They have flaps of skin and only 4 limbs. You cant just mutate extra limbs that fly in one step its too much of a leep.

[dhin]

There are extrem cases of mutaition that results in extra digits, or limbs. BUT more often than not most of these die or are horribly disfigured. When Ironbuket was taking about a "species have 6 limbs." I believe he ment vertabat animals. Which is a true statement. Vertabrats with in the animal kingdom have a maximum of 4 limbs. Snakes have none though they still have pelvic bones and remnates of collar bones and shoulder structures proving that they at one time did have fore and back legs. Many marine mammels also genrally have their digits and hind legs fused together to aid in aquatic life, but these cases are loses of limbs due to adaptation, not the growth of extra limbs which. The growth of exta limbs such as wings on a 4 legged animal would be much more difficult to achive both due to mussucle stucture and skeletal stucture. It is not what one could say was naturally occuring on this planet.

Sugical alteration could be possable for making this possable but this isn't natural occuring so it is not in discusion of species. The truth is for something from the 1890's or even early 1900's creature hoaxs were quite common, and aften made in that manor. Traveling freak shows were a form of entertainment and profit. Often they would invent animals by taking animal parts and sowing them together and displaying it as the stuffed courpes of some mythical animal. There were always new animal types poping up at these types of shows, they brought in alot of money, and scientist of the time were not as ethical or disaplined in their appoch to proving or disproving things. The empirical methods and controlled experimentaion of today where not common and often some "scienist" would make a startalling discovery.

Neandratal man is an example of this. A Skeleton was found in a cave covered in paintings in France. The skull had a broad sloped forehead and many ape like features. It was termed Neandatal Man. The idea of the Neandratal is still belived mainly due to the fact that thought faulty analisis they declaired to have found a primative species of man, and it was commonly excepted. When in fact the skeleton they found in those caves in France was more recently proven to be an older male Homo Sapien (or man like you and me) who suffered from a disfiguring form of arthritus. The point of the actually existace of a Neandatal species is still in debate though because of other forsels found and the presitance of the idea formed from this faulty classifacation. I mearly use this fact to point out that even today scientists do not agree on things even with scientific fact.

Dragons are, in fact, real though. On the Island of Komodo there lives to worlds larges species of monitor lizard. it is named the Komodo Dragon or the Varanus Komodoensis. Sizes average adult males is 8.6 feet, 200 pounds, and females 7.6 feet weighting in at a modest 150 pounds. Bacteria in mouth infects prey when bitten, this usually causes death by blood poisoning, if prey escapes it usually dies within 1 - 2 days (Blood poisoning in often talked about as felling like you body is on fire.)
Now tell me that isn't a real dragon.

Though I think we do all agree that this pickeled thing is a fake. I figured I put my degree in Biology to use just to drive home that fact.

[novoAlias]

lmao@ vertabrat, u had me confused i believe its vertabrates ;) ie with a backbone...

it is interesting that people have figured out what anatomy a dragon has/would have :p.
also a komodo dragon doesnt fly and isnt very smart/delicate, somewhat lessening the wonder involved :):p

[MonteCristo]

The thing that interests me about this item, is the way that some of the skin/scales are peeling off. This tends to happen with organic matter when kept in formaldehyde. I just think it's interesting that that would happen if it was rubber. I guess what all want to know is: what does it look like under an x-ray?

[Ironbuket]

Named after the island on which it was discovered, the Komodo Dragon has gripped the popular imagination since it was brought to the attention of the world in 1910. Lieutenant van Steyn van Hensbroek, a member of the occupying Dutch colonials, learned rumors of a "land crocodile," a creature purportedly over 20 feet long. In time, van Hensbroek caught and killed a six foot Komodo. Then, in 1926, American W. Douglas Burden went on an expedition to research the creatures, and named them "dragons."

Since they were named dragons in modern times. They cannot be a part of the dragon myth and have the same relevance to the existance of the "mythical dragon" as if I named my pet snake dragon :)

[Downup]

If they cut it and there is some heart and brain and things like that can i belive..

But now do i only think it is a Realy good hand modell dragon!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Jenn]

Man! I thought I was jaded but you guys have me beat hands down here.

Where is your sense of wonder and ability to suspend disbelief even if it is for just a fleeting moment? Must imagination always be the casualty of logic and knowledge?

What's life without a little mystery? I for one love this image and it matters not at all if it's real or fake. Because for one brief moment I was transported to a world where anything was possible and away from the communal safety of what is known to be real and possible in this cruel, war torn, disappointing world we live in today.


"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. "
--Albert Einstein

[Daniel]

I dunno, I mean can accept the vision of imagination, and I can appreciate it of course.

But the first thing I always do is look at something in the logical and scientific point of view, I can't help it. I calculate the probabilities and examine the facts. If that's jaded, indeed I am :p

[dhin]

Don't get me wrong. I love dragons, the myth and fantasy of them. For my 18th birthday my mom bought me like 20 porcelain statues including 3 incense burners that blew smoke ring. I've always had a fascination with them. This picture is really cool and detailed, BUT form a purely biological stand point, this dragon is either (a) a fake, or (b) not originally from this world.

If it is real that rules out (a) but then the question of its origin comes in to play. There is no fossil record of any animal - reptile, amphibian, bird or mammal (I leave out moluscs, insects and arachnids and fish for obvious reason)- with 6 limbs. With the skeletal and muscle structures of earth based animals support for 6 limb is an impossibility, it can't happen. So obliviously then by process or comparison and elimination it cannot have originated upon earth, there are no species that are remotely close to having the traits that this creature has. Therefore if it is real, it could not have originated from a species on earth bring us to (b). Where did it come from?

Terrestrial dragons (or dragon originating on earth) would be what fantasy writes often call Wyvern. They have wings but they are the fore limbs and not a 3rd pair of limbs, this would follow the natural biology of earth based animal. Artistically in europe dragons had only 4 limbs in many early depictions. Four legged dragons with a set of wings where not seen until much latter priods. Asian dragons are wingless and more snake like.

From the biological stand point of the eurpoean dragon though a Wyvern is much more believable, due to the fact it that it is not imposable for a flightless ancestor species to give rise to flying species, dinosaurs are any example. Many believe they didn't all become extinct. They simple continue adapting to they environments and are now what we call bird. There is fossil evidence for this. Bats are an example of a flying mammal. A flying reptile then would flow similarly, and it not an unbelievable thing.

The breathing of fire isn't even a real stretch for a reptile either. Many Snakes and 2 species of Lizards produce venom. Venom is chemically very complex and near imposable to simulate or synthesize. Some of these toxins even have no known cure or antidote due to the complex nature of the chemical compounds. Venom glands within a flying lizard then wouldn't be an unheard of thing, and if the gland became more specialized conceivable it could be used like that of a spitting cobra and propel its venom in streams or jets. Since venom has such a level of complexity it is possible that it could react like a natural form of Napalm that ignites upon contact with air especially if it was high in phosphates.

From a biological stand point its all plausible, Wyverns could or could have existed on earth, even though we have no proof of it right now. This isn't a great leap to make. But introducing a species that had 3 pairs of limbs with out and fossil or living relative that show similar traits like an extra pair of limbs make it very unbelievable, because it is an evolutionary leap. Like saying dolphins evolved form apples for example. No proof and no plausible link. Bringing me back to (b). Is it proof then of extraterrestrial life? How did this creature get here? Do aliens have pet dragon? and did they forget this one by accident?

[MonteCristo]

All good points Dhin, but consider for a moment the Duck-Billed Platypus, an egg laying mammal; one of the most venimous creatures on the planet, with the ar$e of a gopher and the face of a duck:

Can we really rule out anything as impossible? Do we really know everything?

[dhin]

Strange as the Platypus may be it still fits to certian rules, even though it is only one of 2 (or three) mammal that lay eggs and is the only mammal that is poisonous. (And personally I see this lil'bugger as proof that there is a God and he has a since of hummor.)

I think it would be extermly cool if dragons of the kind we are talking about could be proven real. But for now I still hold that it could not be terrestrial, not with out further proofs or evidance at least. It would be just too much of a streatch. But the wings are the only problem I have, the rest is possable.

[Ironbuket]

Yea what dhin is saying is right. You cant jump like that from 4 legs to 4 legs and wings. There has to be a middle stage. If there were other 6 legs lizards then you could say its possible, but there arent. It would be the equivalent of a human being born with fully working wings. You might get a mutal human with 1 or even (at a stretch) 2 extra limbs, but they are unlikely to even funtion correctly. Wings are an evolved form of limbs, you cant jump from none to working wings, it just cant happen...

Where did they come from?

I guess I had always thought there were never any “real” dragons. I had always thought that probably what happened was in ancient times people had come across the bones of prehistoric animals like mammoths and maybe even dinosaur bones. Finding bones of truly humongous animals is bound to spark the imagination.

It was only just now that I thought, well where are these bones now? If it happened that way then surely they should have been on display somewhere for the last 3000 years?

Maybe the church destroyed them. That’s the only thing I can think of

Then you have the sea serpents. Not really sure where that one came from. How does a boat disappearing turn into a myth about monsters in the sea destroying them? Sailors know the sea alone is capable of sinking a boat in bad whether, so why would they make something like that up?

I think there must be something to the Dragon legend, especially when you consider even northern European countries seem to have been writing about them, when they would have been very unlikely to have come across any Dinosaur bones in that geographical location.

The Japanese/Chinese etc dragon myths are a bit of a different case though I think. I believe that stemmed from them trying to explain earthquakes. They made up stories that every time there was a quake it was monsters fighting under the sea and stuff like that.

Could the European dragon stories just be carried across from China? It just seems a bit unlikely to me.

[dhin]

Myths and legends tend to stem for a grain of truth. Dinosaur bones really weren't known about until the mid to late 1800's. One of the 'first' dinosaurs was found on the cliffs of the englands shoreline by a little girl. Before then there really was nothing about them.

Euro-dragons may stem for bones found before that time, or maybe even dino-straggelors (survivior species that are not extenct, but are very rare.) These are possablities but there is know way of knowing for sure.

Asian dragons are very different from the European dragron. In Europe dragons were feared and seen as evil foul beasts, were as in Asia they were revered and reveranced, as great beings of power. European dragons had wings to fly with but Asain dragons didn't have wings, but their bodies were long and thin almost snake like they had small legs and swam though the air like a snake in water. The two are like night and day in their differances and in there cultural possitions.

Sea serpents are a far different story. Probalby steming for giant squid and other as yet undiscovered creatures that like in the depths of the oceans.

The existance of the creatures in ancient writings would imply there was some thing that made these creatures far less at thing of fantasy or fiction and more an actually recongizable animal. These animale may very well have died out, but the memory of them from anceint story percisted.They may have become more and more embelished upon though out the centuries after their disaperance, giving rise to the development of an extra set of limbs are wings and what not. No one really knows.

[MonteCristo]

Pah! Next you'll be telling me that the Flying Baby-Faced Meerkat doesn't exist...

[3Dan]

ROFLMAO Monte!
Yknow that's a good idea for a new comp, what?:D

[dhin]

Flying Baby-Faced Meerkats are just as real as Jackalopes, but every one knows that they are insects so they don't really fall into this discution.

[Ironbuket]

I wonder where the word dragon (in english anyway) started from. Find that out and you might be on track to find where the idea that they existed came from.

St George did after all slay a dragon, and not just some nameless demon or such.

Off I went to track down the orgins of the word, and I found the answers :)

I copied this out of this website. Visit if you want to read the whole thing:
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/galatea2.htm

Yet the origin of the idea of the dragon in the West is quite simple and straightforward. The word dragon itself can be traced to a Greek word meaning "sharp-sighted one," an appropriate epithet for a snake. In Latin, the Greek word was converted to draco, and it came to mean "giant snake." To the Romans the dragon was a giant snake, probably a python from India or Africa.

Other evidence that the dragon was a large snake comes from the early pictorial representations of dragons. They were almost always shown as large snakes. Gesner had noted that the old German word for dragon, Lindwurm, really meant "snake-worm" or just "snake, snake." The old Anglo-Saxon word Wyrm has been translated as meaning equally "dragon," "serpent," or "worm." In Beowolf the dragon is called the Worm, and in old English ballads dragons are called the "laidly (loathly) Worm." Throughout Ireland dragonlike monsters were called "direful Wurms."

A popular English folktale which may date back to the early fifteenth century recounts the fight between Sir John Lambton and "the Worm." It is a traditional knight-versus-dragon story. From the sixteenth century onward, artists showed "the Worm" with legs. But the original legend says nothing about legs.

[dhin]

Problem is nothign can really be proven, it's all a matter of opion

[Daniel]

when pigs fly huh?

[Ironbuket]

Originally posted by dhin
Problem is nothign can really be proven, it's all a matter of opion

Opinion is not just saying thats a load of crap because you simply dont want to believe it. If someone has gone to these lengths to research it all and you disagree with them, I think the least you could do is give an alternative if you think some of it is wrong :)

[Zergling]

Well, i'm about to put my view forward. As some of you may know, i don't believe in the validity of evolution, rather i believe in Creationism. Yes, i believe that God created all things, and that man destroyed a lot of them. 'course, the weighty atmosphere after the flood killed the bigger dinosaurs. Can you imagine holding eighty tons of meat up as you slowly get heavier and heavier? Yer bones would snap...

Anyway, enough rambling on... Let's take a look at my unresearched knowledge of dragon myth:

Early in European history, the secret of gunpowder was borrowed from the Chinese, who were using it to make fireworks.
Chinese dragons didn't have wings, but some of the more elaborate drawings had wings, more as a decoration. If you see some of the drawings, you can see that the wings are more flowing rather than structurized.

I believe that when europeans first saw these drawings of dragons (This is about the time cannons were invented. I don't know when all this lore of king arthus killing worms or wyrms came about...) they saw them as evil, and, as intelligent minds will do, they made stories up about them. From then on, these two views of what dragons are came about. now, the question is, did dragons really exist? and what did they look like if they did?

For the answer to these questions, consider this:

Could the Chinese dragons (The ones without wings) swim around in the water? Is there any connection between these Chinese dragons and the Sea Serpent? I think there is...

Where did the concept for dragons come from? People back in the old times were pretty imaginative, but could they have come up with a giant fire-breathing worm on thier own? without any inspiration? I admit it's possible, but is it very probable?

Personally, I believe that dragons were a kind of dinosaur. Consider the Parasaurolophus. What did he use that crest on the back of his head for? Think about what the bombadier beetle does with it's little spare room in it's butt...

Also, i think Chinese saw Leviathan. For those of you who don't know what Leviathan is, read the Bible. It's in Job 41.

In fact, i think i'll paste important bits from the chapter into here:

1 "Can you draw out Levi'athan with a fishhook, or press down his tongue with a cord?
2 Can you put a rope in his nose, or pierce his jaw with a hook?
...
7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons, or his head with fishing spears?
8 Lay hands on him; think of the battle; you will not do it again!
9 Behold, the hope of a man is disappointed; he is laid low even at the sight of him.
...
13 Who can strip off his outer garment? Who can penetrate his double coat of mail?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? Round about his teeth is terror.
15 His back is made of rows of shields, shut up closely as with a seal.
16 One is so near to another that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another; they clasp each other and cannot be separated.
18 His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn.
19 Out of his mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap forth.
20 Out of his nostrils comes forth smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
21 His breath kindles coals, and a flame comes forth from his mouth.
22 In his neck abides strength, and terror dances before him.
23 The folds of his flesh cleave together, firmly cast upon him and immovable.
24 His heart is hard as a stone, hard as the nether millstone.
25 When he raises himself up the mighty are afraid; at the crashing they are beside themselves.
26 Though the sword reaches him, it does not avail; nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin.
27 He counts iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee; for him slingstones are turned to stubble.
29 Clubs are counted as stubble; he laughs at the rattle of javelins.
30 His underparts are like sharp potsherds; he spreads himself like a threshing sledge on the mire.
31 He makes the deep boil like a pot; he makes the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 Behind him he leaves a shining wake; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33 Upon earth there is not his like, a creature without fear.
34 He beholds everything that is high; he is king over all the sons of pride."

Source: www.Bible.com

BTW, this is God talking to Job. This is basically God bragging on one of His creations.

Okay, first of all, consider the reference to "the deep." There is obvious reference to doing battle on land with this beast, but he also "makes the deep boil like a pot. . ." Also, look at verses 19-21. He breathes fire and smoke, that critter... Don't know how much closer to a dragon you can get.

It's something to think about. Even if you aren't a Christian or do not believe in the Bible or Creationism or any of that "rubbish," consider the similarities between Leviathan, the Dragon, Sea Serpents... SOMETHING like that existed, or these stories would not be so similar...

BTW, that thing in the jar is obviously fake... At least, i don't know of any unborn embryos with such well developed and well defined arm muscles. hehehe :D

[dhin]

@Ironbuket - I wasn't debating your sources. I was just saying dragon myths can be found in long dead civilizations per-dating the Greek and Roman empires. Those where not mentioned at all, except for the breif mentioning of how Serpent and Dragon were used interchangably in the Bible. But it doesn't bring up Centeral and South American "dragons," I agree the english term dragon is gererally used to to explain simular creatures in different culteres (example was the Asain dragon being called dragon buy the Europeans when they saw it.) But if I see a horse drawing I will call it a horse regardless of the regional name of the animal. And I don't argue the sources of the names assosiated with dragons are mostly rooted in snakes. But the source uses terms such as:
for the snake was the animal that the Hebrews hated and feared the most
and:
the Chinese hated snakes and regarded them as symbols of evil

Both of these statement are rather strong and only partly correct. They are not based fully in fact. Snakes are not all feared and hated in these cultures. But that would have weakened the claimes made by Mr Cohen. The fact that the European and Asain dragons myths were the only ones mentioned, show this also.

But like I say it is all a matter of opinion. Since all we have is myth there is no real proof of anything.

(BTW - Zergling I believe in creation, also. So don't worry, I'll back you up on that.)

[Ironbuket]

But what I am saying was in reference to the “dragon” in this bottle. We living now in the 21st century see this “thing” and think dragon. Im sure there are stories of “dragon like” monsters going back to the dawn of time, but im equally sure that if you showed this bottle to someone 5000 years ago they aren’t going to call it a dragon.

Dragon is a “newish” word and if you trace the word back to where it came from, as I took the effort to do. You see that “our dragons” come from other references using different names and descriptions. All that seems to have happened over the years is that people have stuck wings etc onto these old stories.

So the “guy” that’s made up this dragon in a bottle has created what we now think of as a dragon, which is likely far from the original form of “dragons”. Which may or may not have existed.

Back to what I said before, dragons may exist/existed, but not looking like this. A statement which is backed up when you see that our idea of dragons is a distortion of the original idea of what they looked like which can be shown through historical research.

And Zergling, WTF…

Where are you getting that info from… Not the bible stuff, Im not even going to try to have a conversation with someone that uses lines from the bible to explain how the world works. But it’s the first time Ive seen someone use quotes from the bible and info about dinosaurs in the same report. So how long ago did these dinosaurs live again? :D

But, that other stuff at the start of your post. Are you trying to say the Dragon myths stem from the invention of cannons…

[dhin]

Point taken, and I agree. The name is not really in issue though. That is just a matter of semantics.

By the definition of the animal by today's understanding and uses of the word, what is in the bottle is a dragon. Regardless of the root of the word. Words do change meanings over time. Tragedy laterally means "Goat song" and they were originally farces not what we now equate to be tragic. My point is the origin of the word doesn't change the meaning today. If you show that to a Greek or Roman they may or may not have called it draco, an ancient Chinese may or may not have called it what ever they called dragons. That really isn't the issue, what the issue is, is whether that thing in the jar is real or fake, call it what you will.

[novoAlias]

Originally posted by Ironbuket
Bbut im equally sure that if you showed this bottle to someone 5000 years ago they aren’t going to call it a dragon.

ROFLMFAO
i read this and instantly thought no, there gonna call it ugh arent they? lol english didnt exist then..

btw if the legends existed 5000 years ago (i have a document saying the oldest record was like 4000-7000 years ago, somewere between the two) then you just had to ask the right people assuming the legend got the dates right :roll:, they could probably point out the start of all this trouble...

btw not being discovered is the smartest thing the dragons ever did methinks, i mean if your found out you get subjected to this kind of crap (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/13/1065917340418.html?from=storyrhs).

so i reckon they may or may not exist, in one form or another. this discussion is very interesting but no-one can actually prove anything can they?

[Ironbuket]

Yea, but :)

The "dragons" we think of now the ones from medievel times onwards. Yes! We are talking about those, look theres one in that bottle!

If he had put a "chinese like" dragon in the bottle, we would not be having this conversation.

The "invention" of the dragons with wings and 4 legs go hand in hand with the "new name" (dragon). Before that they were not called dragons and looked like snakes.

Im sure you can find a 7000 year old picture with a caption saying this is a dragon, but it isnt a dragon! Because that word was invented later, and who ever tagged on the description is taking the decision to call it a dragon out of hand. You are classifying something which is a "i dunno what" into the dragon family. Look how different some of the depictions of dragons are. They are a family? ...

If you want to get to the truth, you should start dropping the idea that anything thats been called a dragon is one. You want to find the flying, fire breathing scaled monsters of legend, not what pictures some monks drew when they got bored of drawing snakes, dont you?

[Daniel]

Monkeys with brain implants can be taught to control advanced robotic arms with their thoughts alone, reports Rick Weiss in Washington.

this isn't real!!! :roll:

[Zergling]

LMAO @ DanielB

BTW @ Ironbucket ... Where did gunpowder come from? Chinese originally used gunpowder to make fireworks. When the tall white man went to China, he saw gunpowder and thought: "Hmm, if i put that in a tube with a large peice of lead or something in front of it, i could really hurt someone!"

That's where gunpowder came from. Now, as long as europeans were going to China, they might have seen a dragon, or at least the Chinese drawings of dragons, and carried these images back to Europe, which is where a whole new kind of myth came from.

Also, dinosaurs walked the earth only about 6000 years ago. Sorry to burst your evolutionary bubble, but you should look at some of the cave drawings men made of dinosaurs... the human footprints inside dinosaur footsprints (the actual footprint fossils were cut through, and the mud layering shows that it's not a haox.

So, in answer to your question, dinosaurs were alive about 6,000 years ago... before the heavy atmosphere and human hunters made 'em extinct.

I don' wanna get into this whole argument about what the name "dragon" means, but i truly believe that a giant, scale-covered big-toothed fire-breathing badass did at one time walk the earth ... and swim the seas...

[Ironbuket]

Hahaha you bit :)

Man, I love you bible bashers and you’re the earths 20k years old or whatever it is by working out how many begets there are written in the bible. Its so funny :)

Im not going to try to debate this logically with you, not because I couldn’t, but because people like you don’t think logically so its pointless. Try reading some books that are on your churches banned list :)


BTW @ Ironbucket ... Where did gunpowder come from? Chinese originally used gunpowder to make fireworks. When the tall white man went to China, he saw gunpowder and thought: "Hmm, if i put that in a tube with a large peice of lead or something in front of it, i could really hurt someone!"
Go back and do some more research, the Chinese used gunpowder as a weapon. They had artillery long before the Europeans came. Maybe not in the form you are thinking of, but they had it.

Lets take a look at some European history for a moment: In the 8th century there is a chronicle written about a battle between a red and white dragon. In the story the red dragon won, and you can see this triumphant red dragon depicted on the flag for Wales (Wales is a country in the United Kingdom). Im sorry to tell you that in the 8th century there were no cannons. Sorry…

[Daniel]

Originally posted by Zergling
LMAO @ DanielB
Also, dinosaurs walked the earth only about 6000 years ago. Sorry to burst your evolutionary bubble, but you should look at some of the cave drawings men made of dinosaurs... the human footprints inside dinosaur footsprints (the actual footprint fossils were cut through, and the mud layering shows that it's not a haox.


uhm, dinosaurs did not exist 6000 years ago... After the comet hit the earth the weather got too cold, which is why the mammal survived, having more resistance with the help of fur. True some lizardsand sea creatures did survive, but if your trying to tell me authetic dinosaurs were alive 6000 years ago, I find it hilarious. No evidence has been found to support this, even less bones that can be carbon dated to only 6k ago.

[Zergling]

I could supply you with sufficient evidence given enough time to dig up sources and scientific proofs and scan them in, but people like you guys who have been indoctrinated and made to believe that evolution is fact just don't listen. Plus I don't wanna make any enemies on here, so i'll just smile and nod along.

*nod*

okay, so i was wrong about where gunpowder came from. Still, the red drake being defeated could have indeed been Leviathan. It's not impossible (at least by my views..)

But let's face it. About the picture ... no baby or embryo of any kind has biceps triceps and detoids THAT defined. There would be baby fat, even on a lizardish thing.

Also, why are the wings unfurled? A baby thing with wings would have them tucked up.

[dhin]

The date of the extiction of the dinosaurs is unknown and all conjecture built around throey. There is no truely solid proof on what, when, how, or if dino's actually died out. Some scientists say they evolved into birds, or they were not all cold blood or reptilian as is commonly believed makeing an ice age prompted total extiction flawed. Some say a metior struck the earth and cause a pseudo-nuclear winter, causing the majority of plant life to die and thus killing large herbavors causiung a chain reaction allowing only small mammal and other highly adptable creatures to survive. Some people say according to creationizum the earth can be no more the 12 thousand years old (due to the fact that there is a statement made by the LORD in the Old Testement that 1 day to God is as a thousand years to man, the use of "is as" in this statement of time though show it to be a statement of illistation and not hard fact IMO) and so the dino lived and die in the early BC probable before the flood. So then jumping back we see that God created the heavans and the earth in 6 days i.e. 6 thousand years and the dinos died out in the 7 thousands and then form there I think it is assumed to be 3 thousand years after the flood Christ is born and we are now two thousand years after so dino's died out 6000 years ago. And there are many other popular therioes that can be discused as well, but really I think you see the point I'm making. IF not keep reading.

There are people who will (as we have seen here,) fight loyally about how all other theroies are wrong and theirs is right. If fact none of these have been utterly proven or disproven. Fighting or making fun of one of these is pointless as it only offends and causes hard feelings and fighting amoung otherwise civil people. Just be cause some puts a view out there that you don't agree with doesn't mean you can just take pot-shots at them or it. That shows nothing but a closed mind and ignorant person. State you opinion and alow others the same.

[Zergling]

There are people who will (as we have seen here,) fight loyally about how all other theroies are wrong and theirs is right. If fact none of these have been utterly proven or disproven. Fighting or making fun of one of these is pointless as it only offends and causes hard feelings and fighting amoung otherwise civil people. Just be cause some puts a view out there that you don't agree with doesn't mean you can just take pot-shots at them or it. That shows nothing but a closed mind and ignorant person. State you opinion and alow others the same.

Dihn, you hit the nail right on the head. Couldn't have put it better meself.

We all have different beliefs, based on how we were raised. I was not raised to believe in evolution, so I won't fight for evolution. I was raised to believe that Creationism is the way to go, and nothing can convince me otherwise.

So basically, truth and reality are all in the individual's mind...

Speaking of which, one question... no, I won't say that... that would be taking a pot shot at evolution :o

okay then.

[Daniel]

well I'm not shooting down anyone's beliefs and if you want to believe in creationism it's fine by me.

I just believe in facts, so saying dinoaurs existed 6 thousand years ago, I will believe when I see the proof. As far as I know, no bones have ever been found to prove it so... As far as evolution goes, they have proof in fossils and remains pretty much showing the change of species along the timelines, so I believe that as well.

when you say creationism, is that the belief that god created the living creatures? If that's what you mean, I also believe in that, hence god pushed along evolution in the direction he deemed fit, anyhow that's just my belief. Making room for scintific fact in religious belief, since neither can be ignored.

[dhin]

Yes, the terms creationism or creationist do refer to the threoy that God created the earth and eveything on it.

Me pressonally, I firmly believe that evolution and creationism are both right. We see evidence of on going evolution today (i.e. adapation of species to there environments,) but I don't beleive life formed by chance or that man evolved from apes. There are no facts to prove that (thus the need for the ever elusive missing-link.) Evolution as explained first by Mr. Drawin was simply that species adapt to fill an nitch within their environments they "evolve" to survive. Never did this imply the complete change of one species to another, that assumption came latter when peoples imaginations stated to run away with the idea. I believe God created life in all its forms the chances are too small of it happening any other way. I also believe mericales can be explained in scientific ways. If God is all knowing then he knows all about science therefore he must do things in a strainght forward scientific manor. The things we can't explain we simply have not discovered scientifically yet. The thing that makes mericales so great though is that God is all about timing.


See science and religion can peacefully co-exist and neither one gets hurt. And now that we are completely off topic any body want to discuse my feeling of sea bass, since I'm not sure it I even have any. ;)

[Ironbuket]

Theres a difference here. If people want to give non-religious based theories that fine. But I don’t think people should be able to drag religion into discussions and then be able to hide behind the “I have my beliefs” rubbish when challenged. Imagine a scientist giving an opinion on this discussion and then when pressed about the details saying its my faith in science or something. You wouldn’t let him get away with it, why should you religious types be able to play by different rules to the rest of humanity?

I cant believe I am getting sucked into this. It always comes down to the “believer” saying it’s a matter of faith.

Frankly im not interested in wasting my life just so you can lay that one on us a bit further down the line. Please leave religious opinions out of discussions. I dont want to be converted to your religion and you dont want to learn about science, so lets save all of us a lot of wasted effort

[Zergling]

Yup, I agree... wasted effort...

To me, there's no Creationism-evolution hybrid. God created everything just the way things are. There are small adaptations withinspecies, but none of those adaptations change the actual makeup of the creature (or human). these adaptations are just that. The creature is adapting not evolving.

Anyhoo, just one question for now. If there are all these hellacious amounts of "missing links," how come we aren't finding hellacious amounts of fossels and bones of them? For example, we always find Tyrannosaurus Rex (sp?) but we never find something between Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus. We only find clearly defined bones, and assume the "in-between" skeletons.

Also, how come none of these missing links aren't still around today? Shouldn't they be living now if they were mildly sucessful? Also, if dinos did live long long ago (i think it's up to 65 million years, although i can remember a time when it was only about 8 million) how come they didn't evolve and become the most dominant life form in existence? Okay, so there was an astroid that wiped out all life (excuse my editorial chuckle) when the mammals came out of the magic holes that protected them from the astroid (chuckle) that killed everything, how come the lion didn't evolve into the most powerful being alive and not even give Homosapiensalmostthere a chance to live long enough to invent the spear?

But most of all, where's all the fossils from in between?

Notice, I have only launched this question (that should be easy for an evolutionist to denounce because of this:
But I don’t think people should be able to drag religion into discussions and then be able to hide behind the “I have my beliefs” rubbish when challenged. Imagine a scientist giving an opinion on this discussion and then when pressed about the details saying its my faith in science or something. You wouldn’t let him get away with it, why should you religious types be able to play by different rules to the rest of humanity?

I was challenged. I don't wanna start nothing too big (what am i talking about, i DIDN'T), i'll be happy if I just get a straigh, logical, feasable answer to my above question(s).

Also, let's talk dragons again. That was getting interesting...

[neiy0]

haha..all this from an unknown picture..awsome

[Ironbuket]

OMG, Im sorry to have to say this Zergling, but please shut up...
You are talking from such an incredibly uninformed position its really annoying to read your posts. Nearly every post you make has some huge error right in the middle of what you are saying.

Also, if dinos did live long long ago ... how come they didn't evolve and become the most dominant life form in existence?
THEY DID...

Dinosaurs were the most successful species EVER. They dominated the planet! The mammals did not start to become successful until the dinos were gone.

how come the lion didn't evolve into the most powerful being alive and not even give Homosapiensalmostthere a chance to live long enough to invent the spear?Again your lack of knowledge make you say stupid things like this. Go watch some natural history footage of interaction between lions and baboons in Africa. Even Neanderthals had spears, so you cant talk about before we had spears. Its very probably we always had spears as we came after the Neanderthals and probably stole their existing technology and built upon it. There are still people around today that can go out and kill a lion with just spears, just as it was thousands of years ago. I dont really know what you are trying to say, that we are not as good as lions? I think you would have to be blind not to realise we are the dominant lifeform on this planet and theres nothing that can touch us. If one of us is killed by an animal the community comes down on that killer like a ton of whoopass. In such circumstances theres no chance for anything to challenge our dominance.


PLEASE read some books before spouting more inaccuracies...

[Torlok2002]

I have to agree w/IronBucket in his last post. The one thing that angers me with creationists is when they make moot arguments because they base their judgements on very bad data and examples.

In evolution anything "mildly successful" isnt successful at all. Thats why they aren't around anymore. Some other creature adapted traits that better suited them in their environment and the other species could not keep up. They were either killed for food, their resources were taken (food, land), or they simply could not exist in that environment anymore.

I am somewhat educated in the beleifs of creationists and other religions, why do they continue to be ignorant in my beleifs and then spout "my theories" grossly incorrectly and try to show me how silly they are. If you are going to argue with these "facts", at least get them right.

Originally posted by Zergling

We all have different beliefs, based on how we were raised. I was not raised to believe in evolution, so I won't fight for evolution. I was raised to believe that Creationism is the way to go, and nothing can convince me otherwise.


This is a problem I have with society. What makes you think that just because you "were raised to beleive" in something makes you think it is correct? Because your parents beleived it was correct, because they were raised this way? What a great system to spread propoganda. Convince one generation of a society to beleive something and you have them beleiving it was true forever. I learned that my parents were human at a very early age, and that they were wrong in many situations. Humans make mistakes and are irrational all the time.

I was raised catholic for 18 years. Do I beleive in creationism and angels? NO. Do not generalize your experiences onto society as a whole.


Originally posted by Zergling

So basically, truth and reality are all in the individual's mind...



So those baboons flying around the city and stealing all the pens, bottles of water and manufacturing chapstick are real? No those are in the mind of the crackhead down the block.

I for one beleive that whatever true "reality" is out there we cannot perceive. Our lives are relative to what we (the majority of the human race) perceive. What makes no flying monkeys not real? Because nobody else sees them, thats why. But i digress... Now I'm getting into sociology.

RIOTPOTM - Reality is only the perception of the majority.

[Zergling]

You guys didn't answer my question. Where's all the missing links? There should be enough bones all around to fill an ocean if the world's been around for 800 billion years or whatever. Also, i know according to your theory a perfectly preserved fossil is only found once in a blue moon, so how come dinos that are the same species ALWAYS turn up with the same bone structure and all that good jazz? If there were really so many in-betweens, why don't we see incredible variations in the ,,, say ,,, triceratops strain? Shouldn't there be a dude with four horns who thought it was a good idea then though better and made one fall off? (BTW, not really being serious. To me, evolution is a satire of itself...)

Okay then, so we always had spears. We were on our way to becoming hairless, clawless and utterly without any natural defense, and we though instead of developing stronger muscles with a bigger brain, we would just pick up some sticks and poke at the big guys... To me, it doesn't make sense. As a human, i wanna be big. Hell, i think it would be awesome to have claws and a sensetive sense of smell. How come all these things went away? Shouldn't we have been thinking of self-preservation and defense more than about being a brainiac? When we were sitting in our caves concentrating on making our brains grow, a bear could have come right up and turned out the lights.

And don't tell me to shup up Ironbucket... At least I don't believe in a "theory." ... actually evolution isn't even a theory, because theories can be proved through hypothesis...

[Knut]

Zerling evolution isnt about what the different individuals want its about survival.

The moth/butterfly case in England during the rise of the industrialization is a good example of this. As the smog made a special type of trees in certain parts of the country darker, and the white butterflies/moths whatever weren't able to camouflage themselves from predators, while the ones with mutations that made them darker were not spotted by the birds, and eventually the whole race had turned black. As the pollution was restricted, the process reversed, and the whole thing was over in a few decades.

[dhin]

Knut - some would argue that was adaptation and not evolution. Since the moth was still the same species when it was white or black.

A better example is found in Colorado USA. Here at a little place called the Grand Canyon there are red squeals. On either side of the canyon they can be found, though they are distinctly different in size, color and habits. This is due to hundreds of years of separation. Gene frequencies in the two populations are significantly different due to this separation even thought they are both the same species. These two groups are sub-species of the common red squeal, through differences in diet and habitat the two have evolved different genetic traits. They do not inter-breed. This was originally due to the fact they cannot reach each other, but when a bridge was build over a section of the canyon a connection between the two colonies was created. Still they do not inter-breed even though they have now been found on either side of the canyon, (using the bridge to cross the canyon.) The fact that they do not interbred now is due to the fact that the female from one side refuse to mate with the males from the other side. They do not display what these squeals perceive to be good traits for breeding. This sexual preference is one that helps to define new species are it further limits the gene pool and prevents teh introduction of new genes into the breeding population. Given more time these two colonies would evolve into totally different species of squeals though they share a common ancestor. Evolution is the change of gene frequencies with in a breeding population, due to separation, mutation, or adaptation.

Thus back to topic I still hold that for a lizard to evolve an extra pair of limbs as wings with no actual evidence of ancestors with similar traits such as 3 pairs of limbs that that creature in the jar is either fake or has origins from some place other than earth.

[Knut]

Hey there 'm not trying to prove the existance of the creature in that jar, lol, I was just showing Zerling an example of evolition, that the species we are familiar with today are not exactly the same as the ones first roaming the surface of this earth. Which is what he knows based on his religious beliefs.

[Zergling]

Yeah, i know creatures aren't what they were when they were first created. (or evolved, or morphed, or whatever) Atmospheric conditions, temperature changes and all that other good stuff gradually force lifestyle changed, which force slight changes in the animals makeup. However, the moths are just an example of widespread mutations. Just as albinos exist, so do black moths. All the "normal" moths just died, leaving only the mutations. Just like some small hich town that's all inbred. Say Jimmy "shotgun" Keets and his cousin Sally "Gator" Keets both have a mutation that makes hair grow in odd places. When they get together, they start making babies that have weird hair. And so on and so on, until the entire population has extraordinarily odd hair patterns.

Evolution, according to scientists, is a perfectly refined process in which things develop in a precise manner. The law of entropy states that this is impossible, but never mind the laws. This is, after all, only a theory. But consider mutations. Have you ever seen a really really beneficial mutation (aside from in X-Men)? They all seem to be degrading to the poor sod who mutates whenever i see 'em.

But enough rambling on. I'm curious to know where all the tons and tons of bones from the allosaurus-tyrannosaurus hybird are. I'd like to see that extra finger going away, and all the tens of millions of billions of centuries of bones working thier way through all the different stages.

Ah bugger, now i wanna model a dinosaur...

(notice i'm not fiercly attacking evolution. If i wanted to do that, i could, but i'm too lazy to scan in a little pamphlet i have... I'm just having fun with this discussion, why can't you all? I like discussions like this as long as they don't turn nasty...)

[Ironbuket]

I will tell you to shut up, because you are spouting such drivel. If you want to real out these examples at least have the decency to research some of it, instead of making it up as you go along which it seems you are doing.
Okay then, so we always had spears. We were on our way to becoming hairless, clawless and utterly without any natural defence, and we though instead of developing stronger muscles with a bigger brain, we would just pick up some sticks and poke at the big guys... To me, it doesn't make sense.
NO, NO, NO...

We did not evolve from Neanderthals, Homosapiens are a separate evolutionary branch. And, what’s this stuff about deciding to evolve? Are you able to decide what attributes you wish to evolve? Wow what a great power you have, can you let the rest of us in on how its done please...

[dhin]

I'd like to be able to decide to evolve. It could be fun, but I suppose that if you could do that Evolutionary ADD would be very bad, you mike evolve into a shoebox or something by mistake.

[Knut]

but fun to watch:D

[Zergling]

LOL @ Dihn!

look, i'm just doing a satire on evolution whenever i say stuff like that. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on my humorous criticism. Maybe you should go home and evolve a humor braincell or two :D

Also, if we don't decide to evolve, who are we hairless, clawless, long sharp toothless, weak, and all soft an pink all over? Wouldn't the exposure to the elements be telling us to evolve more protective gear so we don't rely on houses and other shelter?

We did not evolve from Neanderthals, Homosapiens are a separate evolutionary branch.
you will never know how close I came to squirting coffee out my nose when i read this. You're just transmitting to me such a vivid image of some guy believing in Diablo 2 or some other fantasy world. "NONONO!!! BUT THE FALLEN ARE DEMONS TOO!!!" or "YOU HAVE TO KILL MEPHISTO OR HE'LL DESTROY THE WORLD!!!" "NO, WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS, IDIOT!!!"

I just find that really really funny, no offense...

BTW, you figured out my little fossil puzzle yet?

[Knut]

god used his magic wand and turned them into wine!

Funny? No. Dont speak like obviously right, we all know we aint gonna be able to convince the other part no matter how many "proofs" we dig up. Can you prove god's existence? No you cant. Leave it there or this will turn into a flame war.

[Daniel]

Yes this is seriously getting out of hand. This is really heading into the direction of a flame war.

I mean at first it was interesting, I always like reading about people's different beliefs. But the idea there is not to try to convince people, but just view there ideas from a mute stand point. You can't try to change someone's belief, I have mine, you have yours, if someone doesn't believe in the same thing as you do, just let it go.

Dragons people, Dragons! This isn't a thread about you know who :D

[Zergling]

I mean at first it was interesting, I always like reading about people's different beliefs. But the idea there is not to try to convince people, but just view there ideas from a mute stand point. You can't try to change someone's belief, I have mine, you have yours, if someone doesn't believe in the same thing as you do, just let it go.

That's what i was trying to say.

I'ma let this go. You're right, it's getting out of hand.

let's talk about dragons some more. I've always found the concept of something that huge and powerful just ... cool. That pic is a fake tho... which is too bad.

[Knut]

Trogdor the Burninator!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail58.html

dragons pwn

[Zergling]

LOL!

Oh man, some of those StrongBads are great.

"He was a man! but he was a dragon too. he was a dragon man! or maybe he was just a dragon."

[Ironbuket]

OK, back to the dragons. Please don’t bring any religion back into this...

I want to apologise to whoever these pictures belongs to, as its been on my hard drive a while and I am sure its copyrighted to some website, but I forget to where :(

[Ironbuket]

Muscles:

[Ironbuket]

Skeleton:

[novoAlias]

yup this is what i was thinking of wen i wrote 'it is interesting that people have figured out what anatomy a dragon has/would have .'

it is very cool tho, who has read the pern series? there are a few ideas in there that i found interesting :)

[dhin]

I liked the Pern books.

But I still hold that even with the images above about the anotomy proves what I was saying about dragons evolving else where due to the fact that muscularly and skeletally this creature is very different from anything found on earth.

[neiy0]

its not as different as you would think actually..because if you look at it, the only thing that seems different is the muscles leading up to the wings, and the muscles in the wings. Yes, it has a tail, but then what creature back then, or even now, doesnt have a tail, besides us humans. The anatomy does strike a really close familiarity to a raptor, especially the neck region. It is hard to imagine an animal having a neck shaped like that, but back in the dinosaur days, raptors, and other such land dwelling animals did actually have necks like that. As for the skeletal structure, that dragon has the same features as a dog does today, minus the spinal spikes in the back, and the extra club in the tail. But then, again, those spikes were common back when stegasoris was alive..the spiked back, and tail.

But perhaps, and most likely, all this person did to make these skeletal pictures was to copy the ideas/anatomy of a dinosaur, add some new muscles, bones, etc.. and call it a dragon?

[Ironbuket]

Some more stuff I found related to this "dragon":

As it follows from a document, at first, the little dragon has been offered to the United Kingdom's National Museum of Natural History. However, they immediately spotted the falsification and threw the poor fellow in a dumpster. David Heart's grandfather was able to preserve the can with the mysterious creature. He picked it up from trash and brought it home.

The dragon looks exceptionally realistic. It is difficult to tell whether he is real or fake. The intrigue remains. It was decided to send the find for a thorough analysis.

Mr. Mitchell, who received the can from Mr. Heart is today's proud possessor of the find. He claims, "The winged pangolin is absolutely perfect. His tiny teeth, his face, the umbilical cord, everything appears stunning. I am inclined to believe that it is a fake made from natural rubber, since Germany had been one of the world's largest manufacturers of this product at the time. It can also be made of wax. Anyone who sees it exclaims with passion: 'He is real!'"

And this pic of the dragon from a different angle, sorry about it being so small this was the original size :(

[Zergling]

I would really like to see that thing x-rayed...

Those pics of anatomy are interesting... Someone actually had enough time to draw those from no reference (or maybe he saw a real dragon :p )

I still hold that the thing in the jar is a hoax for the following reasons:

1. Even a reptile has to have a certain amount of body fat. Look at the Biceps and triceps on the arm. Those are really large defined muscles for an infant...

2. The wings would have been folded up and devoid of fluids. Consider the Bassett Hound's ears. They are so large that when the puppy is born, they're all scrunched up like a butterfly's wings. They only expand after I think like 2 months... not sure tho.

Anyhoo... Do you think Dragons laid eggs or gave live birth? I'm too lazy to look up mythical stuff about the noble knight slaying a dragon and smooshing it's eggs or something.

[novoAlias]

hmm, well what would happen to body fat etc wen stored on formaldehyde for 70 years? thats what i thought ;)

[dhin]

Formaldehyde seeps into the fatty tissues and also into many of the membrains, this keeps them from breaking down. This is why formaldehyde is used as a presurvative or embalmer when storing specimens. The problem comes from when looking into DNA, DNA from tissues stored in formaldehyde is often gets badly fragmented or broken up, making it near imposable to get any usable DNA samples or genes.

[Zergling]

Hey Blackwolf, you're avatar is like mine only animated! weee!

Yeah, i know the DNA breaks up. Too bad. We'll have to use a LOT of frog DNA to replace the missing peices :p

oh NO! they're reproducing! they're not supposed to do that!

[artchick]

Originally posted by dhin
Flying Baby-Faced Meerkats are just as real as Jackalopes, but every one knows that they are insects so they don't really fall into this discution.

Originally posted 3Dan-3DT
ROFLMAO Monte!
Yknow that's a good idea for a new comp, what?


I LOVE IT! A "combine 2 or more real creatures" comp, where the end result is an urban legend-type creature, like a Jackalope:D

[Zergling]

I'd have to go with a hippogator ... it's something I invented.

Don't ask...

[Torlok2002]

Sorry to bring this back from the dead. But it looks like it was just another hoax. This time to promote some greedy writers career...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/3576987.stm

[Dill]

Originally posted by MonteCristo-3DT
All good points Dhin, but consider for a moment the Duck-Billed Platypus, an egg laying mammal; one of the most venimous creatures on the planet, with the ar$e of a gopher and the face of a duck:

Can we really rule out anything as impossible? Do we really know everything?


the most venimous !! maybe so .. but i am almost 100% sure no one has died from 1 in the past 200 years.

they are all around where i live, i love it. venimous or not i still try to pick one of the cute little buggers up !

[Chris-3DT]

I have a tiny invisbile Dragon in my cellar. You go and prove me wrong ;)


j/k

[dhin]

Dill - Venom is only secreted by mature males, with production peaking during the platypus breeding season in late winter and spring. It is therefore presumed that males mainly use their spurs when competing for mates or breeding territories.

If provoked, a male platypus can use his spurs as a defensive weapon. In the days when platypus were shot for their fur, dogs were sometimes killed after being sent to retrieve a wounded male from the water. These days, people mainly get spurred when they handle a platypus which has become hooked inadvertently on a fishing line.

Platypus venom is not considered to be life-threatening to a healthy human. However, spurring is painful - in part, because platypus spurs are sharp and can be driven in with great force. As well, platypus poison triggers severe pain in the affected limb and can result in quite spectacular localised swelling.

but ya the are cute.

AND Chris when it has pupies can I have one. . .

[LittleFish]

Okay, so it doesn't sound like platypuses use a neurotoxin (paralyzing). More like a spider bite or something, with the localized swelling and all. A dog picking up a platypus in its mouth could have problems with venom in its mouth, with its mouth swelling shut and whatnot. Interesting.

Edit: that is one nice fake dragon though. I wonder if it will see a museum shortly.

[dhin]

I'm hoping for it appearing on ebay. . .

"I'd buy that for a dollar." (guess the movie that quote is from.) ;)

[Dill]

become hooked inadvertently on a fishing line?!

that is a crazy thought. they are only found in rivers and lakes and the such so the only lines they could get stuck in would be fly fishing lines. I have never heard of that. but as for the dogs yeah i can understand that happening.

[Buonarroti]

Yes Dragons exist....I spent 18 months of my life with one..:(
There also known as Beverley`s...lol

[Dr.N]

anyone here believes in the Loch Ness monster?

I dont , and i think its just a submarine that was under tests and some grand father of 90 years old thought Scream will attack him or something and thats how the story begun
And for sure the submarine is supposed to be secret if it belongs to the gouvernment and they cant say nothing about it

[dhin]

Ya you know those top secret navy bases in Scottish Highlands. . .

[Chris-3DT]

Lord Septerra, you are impossible. *shakeshead*

this is a place for communication. communication works when A says something and B replies to it. A cannot say something and expect B, C, D,... not to reply in one way or another.

[Ferry P]

Originally posted by Lord Septerra
dargons are depicted in the Bible in Job 40 and 41.

(PLEASE DON"T RESPOND TO THIS POST)
(NO DISREPSECT TO NON-BELIEVERS)

dude...quit it....seriously

[il_paulio]

Originally posted by Lord Septerra
dargons are depicted in the Bible in Job 40 and 41.

(PLEASE DON"T RESPOND TO THIS POST)
(NO DISREPSECT TO NON-BELIEVERS)

But but but were talking about dragons not dargons ;) Just brightening up the atmosphere ;)

[MDX]

Yeah, one breed of dragon is know. The Komodo Dragon :P.

[dhin]

Have you guys read the whole thread before you post those things? Komodo Dragons have been mentioned already, and been ruled out, since they are a large lizard and wheren't called dragons until long after they were found, it was done to stur up interest.

As for dragons (most of us will argee) the one in the jar is fake. (read the posted link by Torlok2002) Which is to bad. I like the idea of them. It would be cool if they where real, but they aren't and they never have been (except for Chris' which he's breeding and sending me one of the eggs when it clutchs. ;) )

and Septerra - BEHEMOTH and LEVIATHAN were not Dragons. Behemoth was most likely a hippo, and leviathan was in all likelyhood a Nile crocodile. This is according to most Bible scolars, and generally argeed upon, though like every thing it is open to interpertation. Though the discriptions make these two monstars out to seem much more powerful and what not than a Hippo and a croc this is mainly due to the technology and socila stigmas of the of the day. Today killing these animals in quite easy, back in the B.C. around Jobs time they would have had bronze and a few iron weapons and even the stronges man of the day would have found it difficult to put a bronze spear though the hide on ether of those animals, and seeing that either animal can bit a man in two. . . well I think you can see where I am going here. Anyway the names of those animals then is different that the names we use for them now because of the differance in languages. And when they were translated the one translating didn't know what animal it was and so left the name or made one up. Anyway point being neither is a dragon and both are still around.

[CF)Broodrood]

look ima big dragon fan, but im not gonna say its real, im not gonna say its fake. have any of u a degree in biology, do any of you know how to prove wat it is other than looking at it? no

my opinion, its nice and too a degree it can go either way. only way to be sure is to have it opeed and have a sample looked at.

[Lord Soc]

Um. Yeah. What the heck inspires one to revive ancient threads with ones very first post? Necromancy is impolite.

Besides, there's a rather convincing theory to suggest that, even if they did exist, dragons would have quickly become extinct. It's illustrated quite well, too:
http://bibliophages.free.fr/Humour/dragons.jpg

:smug:

[hegy]

There was a scientific documentary on my local TV network, about dragons ofcourse. It was quite interesting. They made it as a movie. A couple of scientists found a frozen body of a female dragon and it carried a baby dragon. The part where they found the actual dragon is, ofcourse, fictional. And it was more interesting that they made it as a movie with a story. But the point of the documentary was to found out wether dragons could have existed. Was it phisicaly possible for a big four-legged creature to have wings and fly and most of all, was it possible for that creature to burst fire from its mouth... It was very scientific, just the way I like it.

OK, here we go:

Dragons are found in the legends and stories of numerous cultures, and not just myths, but with written sightings and everything. And based on some drawings on ancient potery they found in china, they were really big.
So the main consern for the scientists was that its not likely for a creature that size to be able to fly.
The other concern was, why, oh why would they use fire for self-protection and attacks? I mean, they had the claws, the teeths and all, why the fire?

They finally tied the two pieces together: for the dragon to be able to burs flames from its mouth, it must have some kind of flameable gas inside of itself. Then the dragon would have to had another stomach for the storage of the gas.
AND THEN the gas would have to be refilled when the dragon would have spent it.HOW??

Well they acctually found some mountin rocks in china that when under the influence of some stomach acids, they produce that gas (I can't remember the name of the gas, but I think it was the one thats used to make those BIG baloons fly). The gas is much much lighter than air...

And thats when it hit them, OFCOURSE!!! Massive animal + wings, no way it could fly. But massive animal + wings + gas much lighter than air?? Most definitely it could fly!!

Dragons didn't need fire for protection, they needed it to be able to fly!! Belive me, the documentary was VERY scientific, they even explained why they had four limbs AND a pair of wings.

Although I still belive they would have found some bones of dragons if they existed, I was quite amazed by the quality of the documentary!

And just a quick fact: if you didn't know, today there exists a bug that shoots "fire bombs"!!! Inside of its stomach the bug has a mix of fluids (something like nitro-glicerin), and when the bug attacks it bursts the fluid which explodes upon impact!

[inveni0]

Hydrogen?

[hegy]

Could be! And another thing, on that mountin rocks in china, they found burnt traces. They later figure out it could have been traces of a dragon fight. You know, two tragon chasing each other, one bursts fire, misses the other dragon and the flames hit the rock and leave burnt traces...it was way cool!!!

[inveni0]

The answer to this question is, "Yes." Dragons do exist. I keep several handy for numerous "personal reasons". For example, debt collecting...debt avoiding...ex-lover's revenge...dog fights...santa repellant...marshmallow toasting...etc.

As you can see, the world couldn't do without dragons. Of course, I only see dragons when I'm puff'n the magic dragon...but hey........

[Ilkejav mk5]

I don't think it could be hydrogen though... I may be mistaken, but isn't hydrogen highly explosive? maybe not, but I remember in my physics class many years ago when we burnt hydrogen there was a loud "pop" noise even when burning really small quantities.

It maybe the cause why dragons are extinct... maybe everytime they tried to breathe fire on their prey, they exploded... it would have been a funny sight.

By the way, I read through the whole thread, and I am appalled at how willingly ignorant some people are... it's a shame really, how indoctrination can keep people in intellectual darkness. But I will say no more...

[inveni0]

I was just paging through this whole thing and realized...has anyone ever heard of Big Foot? Perhaps dragons are the Big Foot of years gone by? Bottom line - dragons don't exist...neither does the T-Rex or the Lochness Monster. At one time? Maybe. But not anymore. So it doesn't matter much.

[Ilkejav mk5]

it's the same thing over and over again, in ancient greece, some people found elephants skulls. Of course, they,d never seen a live elephant, and nothing of the likes lived close by. So they imagined a great beast, probably bipedal, with a single huge eye socket where the trunk of the elephant is. And that's how cyclopes were invented.

Take my word for it: Cyclopes, Dragons, Bigfoot, Unicorns, Leprauchons (unfortunately), Chupakabras, Santa claus, King Kong and The Abominable Snow-man are all myths.

Now if there are any large creatures that are still unknown to man, they live in the deeps ocean because it's the last environment that is still largely unexplored...

[DeadlyFreeze]

It was made by 'creepy crawlers' they design mannequins and what not for films...

http://www.crawley-creatures.com/recent/recent_pickled.htm

...it was juat a big publicity stunt if you havent figured it out by now.

[hegy]

Acctually, the reason why those scientists made the documentary is that a group of farmers complained that a big flying creature was killing their cows!! Although they couldn't find it, they decided to determine wether it was possible for them to exist...

[perplex_bob]

So if dragons don't currently exist on out planet, but hypothetically they could, it would seem probable that they would exist on some other planet in the Universe, considering the large size of the universe.

This would also solve the problem of weight and of 6 limbs, as hypothetically the gravity could be lower, meaning that it would be easier to achieve flight, and it could also be that life on that planet evolved with 6 limbs due to a mutation which turned out to be useful...:smug:

[Ironbuket]

So if dragons don't currently exist on out planet, but hypothetically they could, it would seem probable that they would exist on some other planet in the Universe, considering the large size of the universe.

This would also solve the problem of weight and of 6 limbs, as hypothetically the gravity could be lower, meaning that it would be easier to achieve flight, and it could also be that life on that planet evolved with 6 limbs due to a mutation which turned out to be useful...:smug:

Firstly I would like to say well done for resurrecting a thread that hasnt been posted to for 4 years.... not

Re your actual post:

Theoretically an elephant can hang from the side of a cliff by its tail. Theoretically your dragon could travel here by space ship from its hypothetical low gravity dimension and sit on top of the elephant and the tail would still hold the weight of both of them.

However, I dont see the point in considering those options myself :dunno: