Dragons. Are they real?

riverhippo · Sep 20, 2010 12:15 AM

My first argument would be the relationship between dinosaurs and dragons.

And if dragons are just imagination, where did that inspiration come from? Besides pot of course.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 20, 2010 12:37 AM

Is it even worth engaging in debates on non-sensible points of view? It just provides a false sense of credibility to the farfetched ideas presented.

No, they didn't ever exist. If anyone wants to prove me otherwise, I want a solid fact that can't have a logical rebuttal.

Jackson117 · Sep 20, 2010 1:41 AM

This reminds me alot like the Pern series...where they bio engineer dragons for fighting threadfall (a dangerous parasitic type meteor)

riverhippo · Sep 20, 2010 2:06 AM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Is it even worth engaging in debates on non-sensible points of view? It just provides a false sense of credibility to the farfetched ideas presented.
No, they didn't ever exist. If anyone wants to prove me otherwise, I want a solid fact that can't have a logical rebuttal.

Evolution is taught in schools and yet there is no scientific evidence that proves evolution is factual, only theories. We don't know for sure what the origin and destruction of dinosaurs entails.

Anyone know for a FACT when the first dragon appeared in literature or myth?

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Sep 21, 2010 12:10 AM

.

Last edited by 36IStillLikeSpyro36 (Nov 16, 2016 6:47 AM)

Neotyguy40 · Sep 21, 2010 12:54 AM

riverhippo wrote:

Neotyguy40 wrote:
Is it even worth engaging in debates on non-sensible points of view? It just provides a false sense of credibility to the farfetched ideas presented.
No, they didn't ever exist. If anyone wants to prove me otherwise, I want a solid fact that can't have a logical rebuttal.
Evolution is taught in schools and yet there is no scientific evidence that proves evolution is factual, only theories. We don't know for sure what the origin and destruction of dinosaurs entails.
Anyone know for a FACT when the first dragon appeared in literature or myth?

EDIT: Deleted (two people posted before I finished :-P )

Rurikredwolf · Sep 21, 2010 1:13 AM

Them furries are the dragons these days.

Some scare me.

Especially when they think they are dragons.

riverhippo · Sep 21, 2010 1:37 AM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

riverhippo wrote:
Neotyguy40 wrote:
Is it even worth engaging in debates on non-sensible points of view? It just provides a false sense of credibility to the farfetched ideas presented.
No, they didn't ever exist. If anyone wants to prove me otherwise, I want a solid fact that can't have a logical rebuttal.
Evolution is taught in schools and yet there is no scientific evidence that proves evolution is factual, only theories. We don't know for sure what the origin and destruction of dinosaurs entails.
Anyone know for a FACT when the first dragon appeared in literature or myth?
EDIT: Restating in 3... 2... 1

Um, ok...

Referring to dinosaurs, and us for that matter, popular science takes dinosaur fossils and other fossils of "prehistoric" animalia and concludes a theory that explains humans evolved from micro-organisms to fish, fish to reptiles, reptiles to small mammals, small mammals to apes, and apes to intelligent humans. This is taught in most non-private schools am I correct? While it is taught in schools and is considered the foundation for all scientists wanting to explore the origin of the universe and the cosmos, it is still ONLY a theory, not a fact. We know there were prehistoric invertebrates and dinosaurs, but we are unsure when they existed.

Imagine if we blew up a McDonalds in the middle of Utah. Then, a few hundred thousand years later we explored what was left of the establishment and found that all that was left was a fossil of a big mac and a fossil of a large order of french fries. If we had never known exactly what these articles were, we may make an assumption that the large fry could be mutated into a big mac. Of course, this is absurd, but it's almost the same thing when dealing with the existence of prehistoric animalia and discovering how dinosaurs and other beings came to be.

Carbon dating is not accurate, look it up.

Dinosaurs do not exist today. Something killed them off. And scientists have yet to discover and agree on one theory.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 21, 2010 1:40 AM

riverhippo wrote:

Neotyguy40 wrote:
riverhippo wrote:
Evolution is taught in schools and yet there is no scientific evidence that proves evolution is factual, only theories. We don't know for sure what the origin and destruction of dinosaurs entails.
Anyone know for a FACT when the first dragon appeared in literature or myth?
EDIT: Restating in 3... 2... 1
Um, ok...
Referring to dinosaurs, and us for that matter, popular science takes dinosaur fossils and other fossils of "prehistoric" animalia and concludes a theory that explains humans evolved from micro-organisms to fish, fish to reptiles, reptiles to small mammals, small mammals to apes, and apes to intelligent humans. This is taught in most non-private schools am I correct? While it is taught in schools and is considered the foundation for all scientists wanting to explore the origin of the universe and the cosmos, it is still ONLY a theory, not a fact. We know there were prehistoric invertebrates and dinosaurs, but we are unsure when they existed.
Imagine if we blew up a McDonalds in the middle of Utah. Then, a few hundred years later we explored what was left of the establishment and found that all that was left was a fossil of a big mac and a fossil of a large order of french fries. If we had never known exactly what these articles were, we may make an assumption that the large fry could be mutated into a big mac. Of course, this is absurd, but it's almost the same thing when dealing with the existence of prehistoric animalia and discovering how dinosaurs and other beings came to be.
Carbon dating is not accurate, look it up.
Dinosaurs do not exist today. Something killed them off. And scientists have yet to discover and agree on one theory.

I didn't mean for anyone to see that post. I messed up and edited it to give me time to change so no one could see it, but here is my new post I was planning to replace it with:

Evolution is a fact (please read first!). It's been proven over and over that evolution does occur throughout time, and while I don't want to stamp on religion (since it's an easily offendable subject), I just want to explain the difference between a Law and a Theory, because there is a common misconception with many people (actually, MOST people) that a theory is a law that has yet to be proven. This is completely false.

A theory needs a law or fact to exist. Newton is famous for creating many laws. For example, the Law of Gravity. But what many people don't know is that he also created the Theory of Gravity. This was an explanation of why there was gravity. The Law of Gravity stated that gravity exists, but the Theory said why it existed.

Would you believe that it's possible Newton's Theory of Gravity is wrong? Einstein made his own theory that explained gravity better, which was called the General Theory of Relativity. But even Einstein may be wrong! Now many people believe in the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, which also contains an explanation of why gravity exists. All we know is that any of the three may be true (scientists will argue for years until another law comes out erasing one), but what will never change is Newton's Law of Gravity.

This can also be applied towards evolution. Evolution did exist, and even though the unintelligent creationists will say that it doesn't exist, the intelligent creationists will go against the possible Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, instead of the proven Law of Evolution.

My point is, don't use the weaknesses of a theory to disprove a law. The Law of Evolution doesn't necessarily go against any religion. Only Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection goes against the different religions.

I also want to point out that I had no intent of insulting anyone. I know religion is a very easily offendable subject, and I tried to stay as far away from it as I could. I've reread this post a couple times, and I don't have reason to believe I've insulted anyone, but if I did just PM me.

EDIT: Evolution is taught in all non-religious schools. Normal private schools still receive the education on evolution.

riverhippo · Sep 21, 2010 1:54 AM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Evolution is a fact (please read first!). It's been proven over and over that evolution does occur throughout time, and while I don't want to stamp on religion (since it's an easily offendable subject), I just want to explain the difference between a Law and a Theory, because there is a common misconception with many people (actually, MOST people) that a theory is a law that has yet to be proven. This is completely false.
A theory needs a law or fact to exist. Newton is famous for creating many laws. For example, the Law of Gravity. But what many people don't know is that he also created the Theory of Gravity. This was an explanation of why there was gravity. The Law of Gravity stated that gravity exists, but the Theory said why it existed.
Would you believe that it's possible Newton's Theory of Gravity is wrong? Einstein made his own theory that explained gravity better, which was called the General Theory of Relativity. But even Einstein may be wrong! Now many people believe in the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, which also contains an explanation of why gravity exists. All we know is that any of the three may be true (scientists will argue for years until another law comes out erasing one), but what will never change is Newton's Law of Gravity.
This can also be applied towards evolution. Evolution did exist, and even though the unintelligent creationists will say that it doesn't exist, the intelligent creationists will go against the possible Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, instead of the proven Law of Evolution.
My point is, don't use the weaknesses of a theory to disprove a law. The Law of Evolution doesn't necessarily go against any religion. Only Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection goes against the different religions.
I also want to point out that I had no intent of insulting anyone. I know religion is a very easily offendable subject, and I tried to stay as far away from it as I could. I've reread this post a couple times, and I don't have reason to believe I've insulted anyone, but if I did just PM me.[/i]

Don't worry, I'm not even close to being offended.

I actually agree with you. Creationist have a problem with a lot of things that don't even collide with the Book of Genesis. My thought is why can't some evolution, like kangaroo's from rats, be God's creative way of creating things. And if Noah's Ark is such a mark on animal history according to Christians, why are kangaroos only in Australia? Why aren't there penguins in Canada and Alaska? Pangaea, the study of plate tectonics, evolution, and animal behavior all work together to create what we see now, we just aren't completely sure how it works.

But this has little to do with our real argument. How does the law of evolution explain why dragons couldn't have ever existed?

Neotyguy40 · Sep 21, 2010 2:06 AM

riverhippo wrote:

But this has little to do with our real argument. How does the law of evolution explain why dragons couldn't have ever existed?

It doesn't... I'm just an idiot who likes to correct people :'(

Truthfully, the reason why I don't think dragons exist is because there is no evidence that they could have possibly existed. Unless their remains burnt up or something when they died, or that they are just extremely rare, dragons have more evidence against them then for them. And to tell the truth I don't think it's really a conversation worth arguing about. Though I admit I think it is worthwhile to talk about it.

riverhippo · Sep 21, 2010 2:13 AM

Wow, I was at a conspiracy theory website and found this stunning article.

It's kinda funny. And creepy.

It takes me back to my Year of the dragon days when there were 150 dragons eggs to save from the sorceress. Looks like I missed one...

http://www.rense.com/general48/badjoke.htm

pur · Sep 21, 2010 10:44 AM

Probably not since they violate a lot of laws of physics.

But really, they're probably stemmed from various folklore and animals (Dinosaurs are an obvious one, although things like crocodiles, larger lizards, dolphins et al, sharks et al etc have also been seen as possible sources to them), with just one blanket name applied to all of them when they're vastly different from place to place. That's the drawback of languages for you.

Jackson117 · Sep 21, 2010 11:17 AM

Rurikredwolf wrote:

Them furries are the dragons these days.
Some scare me.
Especially when they think they are dragons.

It doesn't help that furries who make a persona of themselves animalised get bashed by haters because hater met some $^&%^ moron going yiff yiff.

Blaze the Dragon · Sep 21, 2010 1:55 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

riverhippo wrote:
But this has little to do with our real argument. How does the law of evolution explain why dragons couldn't have ever existed?
It doesn't... I'm just an idiot who likes to correct people :'(
Truthfully, the reason why I don't think dragons exist is because there is no evidence that they could have possibly existed. Unless their remains burnt up or something when they died, or that they are just extremely rare, dragons have more evidence against them then for them. And to tell the truth I don't think it's really a conversation worth arguing about. Though I admit I think it is worthwhile to talk about it.

Actually, I believe scientists found a fossil that they believe may have belonged to a dragon. Though that was years ago when they found the fossil, so I may be mistaken, if it has been proven otherwise since it was found. Supposedly, with carbon dating, that fossil predated the fossils of dinosaurs. But that could easily make it a shark, a crocodile/alligator, etc. since those creatures existed before dinosaurs and still exist even after the dinosaurs' demise.

riverhippo · Sep 21, 2010 2:13 PM

pur wrote:

Probably not since they violate a lot of laws of physics.
But really, they're probably stemmed from various folklore and animals (Dinosaurs are an obvious one, although things like crocodiles, larger lizards, dolphins et al, sharks et al etc have also been seen as possible sources to them), with just one blanket name applied to all of them when they're vastly different from place to place. That's the drawback of languages for you.

Breathing fire is impossible some say.

But all you need to make fire is oxygen, fuel, and something to ignite. All it takes is an animal that breathes out oxygen and methane that has some mechanical trigger in their system that ignites a flame. How is it we can have creatures that give off their own light and electricity, but we can't have a creature breathe fire.

Clock-la · Sep 21, 2010 4:04 PM

There notr real...

well depend komodo dragons are but spyro wing dragons arn't tongue

Neotyguy40 · Sep 21, 2010 11:05 PM

riverhippo wrote:

pur wrote:
Probably not since they violate a lot of laws of physics.
But really, they're probably stemmed from various folklore and animals (Dinosaurs are an obvious one, although things like crocodiles, larger lizards, dolphins et al, sharks et al etc have also been seen as possible sources to them), with just one blanket name applied to all of them when they're vastly different from place to place. That's the drawback of languages for you.
Breathing fire is impossible some say.
But all you need to make fire is oxygen, fuel, and something to ignite. All it takes is an animal that breathes out oxygen and methane that has some mechanical trigger in their system that ignites a flame. How is it we can have creatures that give off their own light and electricity, but we can't have a creature breathe fire.

We technically do. There is this family of beetle known at a bombardier beetle that shoots off 2 hydrogen-based compounds, and when combined create a heat that could boil water. Of course this isn't necessarily a 'fire', but it acts similarly.

But the main reason why we have creatures that give off light and electricity is because light and electricity are easy for an organism to maintain. Light can be created by using non-lethal chemicals generated by cells. Electricity can flow through a creature without harming it under the right conditions.

Fire is completely different. Since all organisms are made of cells, and all enzymes and chemicals used are generated from these cells, there would need to be some way for a cell to generate non-lethal fuel for a flame to be ignited. Which, by what I know, there are no flammable chemicals that are non-lethal if kept in an organism. Infact, the only reason that beetle can use those chemicals is because it has skeletal plates formed around the chamber that the chemicals are stored in, which is impossible for an animal to have.

Here is some more reasons:

No animal in the Reptilia class has more then 4 limbs (or must have had 4 legged ancestors), so dragons (if existed) must be wyverns.

Reptiles are cold blooded, which would give very little credit to the idea that dragons lived high up in the cold mountains, and came down to the warmer area to hunt. Changes in environment like that are almost impossible

For the idea of a dragon to fly, they would have to have a wingspan of almost 5 times their body length. Even if this was possible, a heart and lungs would need to be huge (I mean REALLY huge) just to maintain blood-flow. Not to mention if the dragon actually decides to take off.

Unless the bones of a dragon burn up, dissolve, or somehow disappear, we have not found any fossil that could be a dragon.

"Dragons" may be found in myths and cultures that have not met each other for thousands of years, but the thing is the different dragons vary so greatly that it's a wonder why they were translated into "Dragon" for english. Most native Americans said that their dragons didn't even have scales, or could fly, or were large!

The closest thing we have to a dragon is a velociraptor, which is the link between a reptile and a bird.

riverhippo · Sep 22, 2010 6:41 AM

nice input.

What really got me thinking about the possibilities of dragons was a documentary by Carl Sagan in which he shared his thoughts about other intellegent life in the universe. He predicted that if we found life on other planets that the biology and form of it species could only be similar to Earth's biology if it expirienced the exact same "accidents" that made life here on Earth.

Imagine the biological possibilities of life in a world that shares traits with Earth only a little. There are several species on the Earth's ocean floors that constantly redefine the biological possibilities of all living things.

Clock-la · Sep 22, 2010 2:37 PM

I read on old maps peopole but "Here be dragons" on places, but the reson was because they thought things like eliphants were dragons.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 22, 2010 9:52 PM

riverhippo wrote:

nice input.
What really got me thinking about the possibilities of dragons was a documentary by Carl Sagan in which he shared his thoughts about other intellegent life in the universe. He predicted that if we found life on other planets that the biology and form of it species could only be similar to Earth's biology if it expirienced the exact same "accidents" that made life here on Earth.
Imagine the biological possibilities of life in a world that shares traits with Earth only a little. There are several species on the Earth's ocean floors that constantly redefine the biological possibilities of all living things.

On our lovely little planet called Earth, we have 3 domains; Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. Humans, along with plants, fungii, and the other kingdoms of life fall under the Eukarya domain. We have cells that have a nucleus and use organelles to allow a cell to function. Bacteria have a cell membrane, but there is no nucleus or organelles. I'm not sure how they work, and I don't really care, but they are not like our cells. Archaea on the other hand are like bacteria, but they have completely separate DNA types, so they have their own domain.

These 3 domains were actually formed in different ways, so life actually started on Earth 3 times! This means 3 things. First, it means that if a planet has conditions similar to Earth, life will almost certainly form on it (unless Earth was just lucky to have it happen thrice). And secondly, it means that if we do find life on another planet, it will almost certainly not fall in the same domain as our 3. They will be completely different. Lastly, because both Bacteria and Archaea are always single-celled, it makes sense to assume that if we do find life on another planet, they will also be single-celled (unless Earth was very unlucky with multi-celled organisms).

Clock-la wrote:

I read on old maps peopole but "Here be dragons" on places, but the reson was because they thought things like eliphants were dragons.

Actually, the statement "Here be dragons" was a saying used to tell people that they did not know what was over at that place on the map. Actually, there is a website called Here Be Dragons that does a great job explaining that and critical thinking.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 22, 2010 9:59 PM

DELETED: Double post ftw?

riverhippo · Sep 23, 2010 2:06 AM

i got to admit, neo, you are pownin' this topic.

Swaffy · Sep 23, 2010 2:27 AM

If my laptop hadn't been stolen when my house was burglarized, I would
have placed a solid iron brick right in the middle of this. Unfortunately, I
have no time at the moment to say much, and was just checking in on my
main family computer. Plus, arguing and debating in the confines of
religion is prohibited.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 23, 2010 9:06 PM

Swaffy wrote:

If my laptop hadn't been stolen when my house was burglarized, I would
have placed a solid iron brick right in the middle of this. Unfortunately, I
have no time at the moment to say much, and was just checking in on my
main family computer. Plus, arguing and debating in the confines of
religion is prohibited.

We're not really talking about religion anymore. We are talking about biology and how dragons could or could not exist.

riverhippo wrote:

i got to admit, neo, you are pownin' this topic.

Well it's interesting because I just started accelerated Bio, and we are literally learning everything that I just said. The Here Be Dragons website is probably my idol site though, because it really got me thinking about science, politics, and math. It made me think about what people say, and now I can pretty much see all the flaws in speeches, plans, and debates.

#1 Sep 20, 2010 12:15 AM

Dragons. Are they real?

#2 Sep 20, 2010 12:37 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#3 Sep 20, 2010 1:41 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#4 Sep 20, 2010 2:06 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#5 Sep 21, 2010 12:10 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#6 Sep 21, 2010 12:54 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#7 Sep 21, 2010 1:13 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#8 Sep 21, 2010 1:37 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#9 Sep 21, 2010 1:40 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#10 Sep 21, 2010 1:54 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#11 Sep 21, 2010 2:06 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#12 Sep 21, 2010 2:13 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#13 Sep 21, 2010 10:44 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#14 Sep 21, 2010 11:17 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#15 Sep 21, 2010 1:55 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#16 Sep 21, 2010 2:13 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#17 Sep 21, 2010 4:04 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#18 Sep 21, 2010 11:05 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#19 Sep 22, 2010 6:41 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#20 Sep 22, 2010 2:37 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#21 Sep 22, 2010 9:52 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#22 Sep 22, 2010 9:59 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#23 Sep 23, 2010 2:06 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#24 Sep 23, 2010 2:27 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#25 Sep 23, 2010 9:06 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

Board footer