Dragnix.Net

Thinking about it I can see vampirehunters point. So what you are saying is that along time ago people found dinosour bones and not know what they were created mythologies from them? So are Dragons real or a figment of mans imagination? Do they have anything to do with people finding bones or fossils or something completly different?

The finding of bones is just one of the ideas on where the myth of dragons may have come from. But some researchers have went to China and collected some "dragon" bones they were using for "natural medicines" and the bones were clearly dinosaur bones.
(Still looking for the link< I know I saw it somewhere.)

And in David E. Jones' 'An Instinct for Dragons'. He tries the idea dragons are created by inner mind from creatures our ancestors knew to fear. But his ideas are somewhat weak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Instinct_for_Dragons

But there may have been a creature, which started this idea. I really think of the crocodile, alligator or large snake (python, boa or anaconda) as the living creature which may have started the stories.

But I just want to see some hard evidence on it. Like a dragon skull from a European castle or something like that. You would believe there would be something like that in the Tower of London at least. With most of the posters here believing knights killed off most of the European dragons. Does that not make sense?

On the point of stories of Dragons coming from crocodiles or anacondas: I don't think Dragon tales came from seeing any natural animal. Normally if its an animal the decription stays the same but the size increases. Take this example of claims of giant anacondas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda
The snake is still called a snake just it size is 45m long. The only Dragon I have heard that matches anything like a giant snakes decription is the Worm dragon. (I think I am right please correct me if not.) Vampirehunter you do have a point about the european dragons. Why do you think there are so many tales of knights killing 'bad' dragons (and there being no evidence that we can see) but in China dragons are 'good'.

The size thing is the same idea as "the fish that got away".

Taking the snake, most of the "new world" dragons are described as serpents. And in their early descriptions are closer to a real snake, and only the later civilizations added feathers and things like that. And the feathers are more of a ceremonial thing, like the headdresses worn by the chefs of the different tribes.

But there are a large number of the "serpent" like dragons.

And as of others, when you look at images of St. George for example. The dragon is normally not that large, being smaller than his horse. And most "real" older stories, keep the dragons as about that size. A number of the "god like" dragons are much larger, but these are mountain or even earth sized creatures.

The main problem with the dragon and other creatures of myth is the, as above, "the fish which got away" idea. Things sound better when you beef up the power of the creature you faced or saw. And this some what fits into the my theory of "Dragons were the UFOs of the past", if you see an artifact in the sky or in the distance, you need to call it something. And in the past they called them dragons and other creatures.

I think most of the strange creatures were from mirages in the distance. Like a group of horse riders warped in the distance may have been the berth of the centaur. (my personal favorite creature of myth by the way) And the dragon may have come from something like that as well.

I like to go with the quetzal bird as a source for the feathered seprent dragons. If you've ever watched a quetzal in flight, you know what I'm saying.

I agree on that one.

On a side note, did you know they didn't kill the birds to get the feathers. They knocked them out with blunt arrows and just pulled them off. And then let them go.

So on the topic of "Are dragons flesh and blood or myth" we would have to conclude that Dragons are myths, cooked up by misconseptions and peoples overactive imaginations.

We wouldn't have to conclude at all. Honestly, we'd just have to concede a lot.

Justwondering wrote:So on the topic of "Are dragons flesh and blood or myth" we would have to conclude that Dragons are myths, cooked up by misconseptions and peoples overactive imaginations.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

True, but all it gives is "fool's hope".

But on the topic idea. Let us take a recent event and think of what would be the reactions from the past. Like the recent meteorite strike in Peru

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Peruv ... rite_event

Take the description:

The impact created a crater larger than 4.5 m (15 ft) deep, 13 m (43 ft) wide, with visibly scorched earth around the impact site.[4] A local official, Marco Limache, said that "boiling water started coming out of the crater, and particles of rock and cinders were found nearby",[5] as "fetid, noxious" gases spewed from the crater

We have scorched earth, boiling water and gasses from the crater. And as well the local water was poisoned by something. And nobody saw the impact.

If we were in the past this would be counted as a dragon attack. This is not from an over active imagination, it is just using what people knew about "nature" and working out what happened. And I would expect after a within a few months someone would see something in the air or movement in some nearby water and would give them even more evidence for a dragon. And maybe after a year or so, when the water is cleaned up and nobody has seen something for a while. The dragon would have been killed or just went on.


The above idea is sound, and using knowledge from the past would have happened. Just look at what they thought is was at first, they thought it was an attack from Chile.

"Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."

"I before E, except after C, or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh, or when it's weird."

"And that, my friends, is how this game is played."

~Anonymous, A Ninny Moose, and a Pig

Silent what do you mean by your post? You are full of mystery. Your name derives from the word silent, yet you voice your opinion quite a lot. You also leave these cryptic posts which leave the mere mortals among us 'just wondering' what you truely mean.

Falconer: True but you would expect more proof than stories that can be explained as natural animals or events. I may be wrong but most of the evidence vampirehunter points to suggests just that.[/quote]

My name has nothing to do with silent, it actually comes from an archaic word in a very different language. eeeiiaa (Ee-eh-ee-uh). The language later added psuedo-consonants to the ends of syllables, and it was (ill-en-tea-ah). I added the initial 's' to make it more personal.

As for what I mean by my post...

I mean for it to be interpreted to the best of your ability. Take from it what you will.

I believe it was a try at sarcasm at Falconer's post.

But back to the post.
I thought of a note to add to my post above. I am not saying this a way to explain all dragons from the past. But it may help to explain where some of the stories came from.

Here's my 2 cents worth:

Some dragons can be explained by fossils. The indians find a pterosaur bone, they think up an ampithere. They find a therapod near pterosaur wings, it's not hard for someone to imagine they went together. How diffrent cultures can have dragons:
Humans came from Africa, civilized in the Middle East, then spread around the world. The dragon could originate in the Middle East, and the cultures carried the myth with them as they colinized the world.

Here is a completly different theory that I have been thinking about. If dragons did exist and were not 'animals' but beings of higher intelligence and wisdom and a higher form of evolution then they could have had unique abilities. One of these abilities could have been that when dragons die their bodies 'disappear'. 'Go to be with the force' for want of a better term. Therefore a knight could kill a dragon - hence the tales from Europe, but because the dragons body dissapears there is no hard proof. And it might stay that way forever: occasional sightings but no proof being found unless the dragons reveal themselves willingly. Any thoughts on this?

Apparently my sarcasm isn't very good.

And for really good proof, check out the Bible. In Job 41, God describes one of his creations: Leviathan, thought to be a sea monster. Really, I ask you. Check it out. Who else do you know who can breathe fire?

19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

Ok to keep this from turning into a religious thread, I'll give you that one. But remember you do only get one for Leviathan. So that give no help for other dragons.


But this does create the idea behind what would need to be done. By creating three piles of the evidence, and finding the usable parts for strength.

1: maybe real. This is where you will put things like above. Where there may be a chance at having creditability.

2: On a knife's edge: This is where most things will pile up. It will include things that really don't have any backing but have no other real example to what it would be.

3: Noted fakes: This is where things will go which have been shown as a fake. An example is that "pickled dragon".

"Yup. It's a cow fetus."

I note that you have no category for "Certified Proof".

Because there is none for nothing. Everything can be shown wrong, and be seen in another light. And I guess if something comes along which shows beyond all doubts that it is true, I'll add it.

For example the "earth being the center of the universe theory" really works. And would make a lot more sense to people than the explanation of gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

Note: planetariums use this model to work its gears on showing the night’s sky.

As enlightening and enjoyable as that was to read, I dont' think it applies all that very well. It does make your point, though.

vampirehunter42 wrote:Everything can be shown wrong, and be seen in another light.

That's quitter talk.

Falconer wrote:

vampirehunter42 wrote:Everything can be shown wrong, and be seen in another light.

That's quitter talk.

How is that quitter talk? It is thinking like that which keeps people going. For the sake of proving someone was wrong about things.

Anything can be proven impossible to prove. Even that.