Spyro the Dragon Forums / .

Re: .

dummy@example.com (Namba) — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:52:49 +0000

MrX-Link wrote:

Are we all gonna divide by zero now?

What fun...

Re: .

dummy@example.com (SpyroDarkdude01) — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:42:54 +0000

Dragons are cool. But I really don't know. If so many people believe in the Jersey Devil then how come the Dragon does not exisit. So a dragon exists, no breathing fire, possibly wings for gliding. The dragon would need to be around 6.5 inches in height possible higher. Teeth for attacking prey, large legs used to keep itself up, it would most likely dispatch it's prey from the ground like a feline stalks it's prey. The wings could be used to dispatch flying food such as large owls and large birds such as eagles. Short horns most likely 12 inches in length and razor claws for dispatching it's prey. But that would be if a dragon was what we see in popular culture as a dragon compared to what I think what a modern day dragon would be......

Re: .

dummy@example.com (MrXLink) — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:46:32 +0000

Are we all gonna divide by zero now?

Re: .

dummy@example.com (Namba) — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 03:15:03 +0000

MrX-Link wrote:

Back on Dragons: They exist if you believe in them. If you don't and you wanna prove they aren't there, you can't.

Chyah.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (Starscream) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:48:25 +0000

They exist if you believe in them. If you don't and you wanna prove they aren't there, you can't.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (A Guy) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:44:02 +0000

The burden of proof is on the person that says that something exists.

I have the ability to perform cold nuclear fusion. Prove I can't.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (MrXLink) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:35:42 +0000

Back on Dragons: They exist if you believe in them. If you don't and you wanna prove they aren't there, you can't.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (bmah) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:47:27 +0000

Scientific discoveries have always been exploding since at least the Rennaisance times. "Explosion" is a relative term that is, in this case, exponential and will be that way in the forseeable future.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (Aceedwin) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:04:24 +0000

I don't know about that. They say that the explosion of science is due in the next few decades. Who knows what'll happen.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (SpyroDarkdude01) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 05:35:49 +0000

Chryokinesis wrote:

That's some crazy crap. What if that did happen and you were able to create some sort of freak of nature?

True. But that won't happen until we are all dead.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (MrXLink) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:07:21 +0000

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Chryokinesis wrote:
You're always going to have to have some sort of DNA to create a living thing. You always have to have something to make something.
Not necessarily. You can always start out making DNA from scratch without any base DNA at all. Infact, scientists recently just created the first artificial organism. Granted it was a very simple single-celled being, but it's a start!

Reminds me to an older Dr. Who episode with human farming to use "living pieces of flesh" as lab rats for diseases and cures.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (Neotyguy40) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:10:43 +0000

Chryokinesis wrote:

You're always going to have to have some sort of DNA to create a living thing. You always have to have something to make something.

Not necessarily. You can always start out making DNA from scratch without any base DNA at all. Infact, scientists recently just created the first artificial organism. Granted it was a very simple single-celled being, but it's a start!

Re: .

dummy@example.com (SpyroDarkdude01) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 03:27:51 +0000

The New age of Cynder wrote:

[i]Dragons are real.
▼Hidden text
Australian Water Dragon;

Heh, heh. Now try imagening that 100 time bigger, giant wings and breathing fire.
Looks cool in your head.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (Namba) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 02:53:54 +0000

You're always going to have to have some sort of DNA to create a living thing. You always have to have something to make something.

Re: .

dummy@example.com (Neotyguy40) — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:40:58 +0000

Chryokinesis wrote:

That's some crazy crap. What if that did happen and you were able to create some sort of freak of nature?

I highly doubt it would survive. DNA is delicate, and so is the organism itself.

The possibility of creating, from scratch, a DNA genome that can replicate itself to form a creature with a nervous system stable enough to even survive (let alone think and have a consciousness) would be VERY hard. Above today's technology, and most likely past the 22nd century too.

But now you gave me a game idea :-P