Dragons. Are they real?

Trasher258 · Sep 24, 2010 10:55 PM

You know literture can be written, destroyed, and rewritten, right? If you can interpert what books are cover-ups and what stick to the root then you'll see something quite diffrent about 'historical' records. Unfortunately, that would just make reading much harder for everybody.

Rurikredwolf · Sep 25, 2010 3:31 PM

Jackson117 wrote:

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.

Now I have no issues if they do that. I just don't wanna see it. But some do bring it on themselves to get bashed.

Clock-la · Sep 25, 2010 4:39 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

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.

Basicly what I was trying tosay, the book I said says how people did'nt know what was in the land, and then uses elphants as an exsample of why they put "Here be dragons"

JazzJackrabbit · Sep 25, 2010 11:00 PM

I believe dragons may have existed, and I actually think the fire breathing variety is possible. Maybe they could produce alcohol (or methane), spit that out, and light it as it exits where ever it comes out. It's a similar concept to lighting farts. It's possible that their fire-breathing led to extinction due to mishap. It's not so crazy when you think about it.

The lesson:
Taco Bell gives you mana.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 26, 2010 2:18 AM

JazzJackrabbit wrote:

I believe dragons may have existed, and I actually think the fire breathing variety is possible. Maybe they could produce alcohol (or methane), spit that out, and light it as it exits where ever it comes out. It's a similar concept to lighting farts. It's possible that their fire-breathing led to extinction due to mishap. It's not so crazy when you think about it.
The lesson:
Taco Bell gives you mana.

Alcohol is actually a poison, and no creature, (animal or micrsoscopic) has the ability to produce it. Methane on the other hand is possible, but highly unlikely because methyls are not flammable, but more 'explosive'. The dragon would literally explode if it tried to breath fire.

I am trying to think of a chemical that isn't poisonous, can be produced biologically, and is flammable. It would need to be an alkane, like methane gas, but it can't be a methyl, since they are explosive. I guess there may be an ethyl compound that is similar to that, but I still can't think of one that isn't poisonous...

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Sep 26, 2010 3:34 AM

@ neotyguy40: remember that what may be poisonous/dangerous to one thing may not be to another. think about extremophiles - organisms that live in "extreme" conditions that we would never survive a minute in.

wouldn't it be possible that dragons could have developed an immunity to the poisons?

.

Last edited by 36IStillLikeSpyro36 (Feb 12, 2015 1:44 AM)

Neotyguy40 · Sep 26, 2010 4:28 AM

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

@ neotyguy40: remember that what may be poisonous/dangerous to one thing may not be to another. think about extremophiles - organisms that live in "extreme" conditions that we would never survive a minute in.
wouldn't it be possible that dragons could have developed an immunity to the poisons?

Depends. There are certain poisonous chemicals that no organism can possibly become immune to. One of them is alcohol. That is why we don't build an immunity toward it, our liver and kidneys just filter it out. Another example would be bleach.

The reason I am trying to think of a chemical that an organism currently is immune to is because if dragons existed, whether it was 100 million years ago or today, there would be some sort of creature that takes some characteristics of a dragon. One of them will most likely be immunity to that chemical. While it is 'possible' that a dragon or other organism may have developed that immunity and never passed it along or received it, I highly doubt it would have happened.

Clock-la · Sep 26, 2010 9:34 AM

tongue well a dragon dons'nt HAVE to breath fire to be a dragon so prehaps long long LONG ago they might have been "dragon like things"

riverhippo · Sep 26, 2010 1:10 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

The reason I am trying to think of a chemical that an organism currently is immune to is because if dragons existed, whether it was 100 million years ago or today, there would be some sort of creature that takes some characteristics of a dragon. One of them will most likely be immunity to that chemical. While it is 'possible' that a dragon or other organism may have developed that immunity and never passed it along or received it, I highly doubt it would have happened.

The problem I have with this is it devalues the value of dragon evolution and biology while giving credit to evolution as a very unlikely occurrence in Earth biology.

Think about this: If a football team was on a long winning streak, does their probability to lose the next game increase or decrease after every win ?

Evolutionists and realists do not mix.

JazzJackrabbit wrote:

Taco Bell gives you mana.

LOL. True dat...

Neotyguy40 · Sep 26, 2010 7:27 PM

riverhippo wrote:

Neotyguy40 wrote:
The reason I am trying to think of a chemical that an organism currently is immune to is because if dragons existed, whether it was 100 million years ago or today, there would be some sort of creature that takes some characteristics of a dragon. One of them will most likely be immunity to that chemical. While it is 'possible' that a dragon or other organism may have developed that immunity and never passed it along or received it, I highly doubt it would have happened.
The problem I have with this is it devalues the value of dragon evolution and biology while giving credit to evolution as a very unlikely occurrence in Earth biology.
Think about this: If a football team was on a long winning streak, does their probability to lose the next game increase or decrease after every win ?
Evolutionists and realists do not mix.

It doesn't change the probability that the team will win, but it shows that they have either a very high probability of winning (since it means they are good), or it means they are very lucky. The longer they go without losing, the more it shows they win because of skill. There will always be that chance that it is just luck, but you also need to think of the probability of the probability (double occurence?).

Scientists can only make hypotheses' on things they already know. For example, there is no animal in the world with more then 4 limbs, so it is extremely unlikely that a dragon could exist if it had wings separate from their arms. Is it possible that a dragon could have wings separate from their arms? Yes, but that prediction would be based off a probability of less then 0.00001% (sort of an exaggeration). This can also be based off of other things like the ability to breath fire.

So basically, if there was a dragon that existed at one point, it would be wyvern-like and not breath fire. This actually has probability to be true. A velociraptor has feathers, a pterodactyl can fly similar to a wyvern, and it's possible that it could have venom similar to a snake. The perfect definition of a wyvern too. Those three are very closely related, so it is very possible it may have happened at one point. But we would need to find a fossil to prove anything about it.

riverhippo · Sep 26, 2010 9:47 PM

the likelyhood of a football team winning decreases after every win based natural balances in statistics. ESPN may predict their opinion of the best football team would have a record of 14-2. And if that prediction held up, the likelyhood of that team losing increase after every win. There's true probability that's basic and never changes. And then there's complex probability that changes everytime new information about the occurrence is found.

I like what Carl Sagan said about evolution. "What is improbable in a thousand years is perhaps inevitable in a million."

Storywriter11 · Sep 26, 2010 10:06 PM

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

^ nope, i don't know, sorry.
but dragons did exist, i firmly believe this. think about it; dragons exist in several cultures throughout the world. i don't see how it's possible for them to not have existed at some point.

I agree. Thisnk about this; those ideas, different culture all around the world having a similar historical call upon of dragons, they had to get the idea from somewhere, and we have no true way of knowing where the ideacame from or how it managed its way through so many cultures and stories being so similar.
Plus evolution is a delecate and unpredictable thing. Human beings could have wound up looking like something completely different than we do today, because of evolution. We look the way we do becasue evolution denied the other hundreds of possibilites(Its true, look it up), so whats to say dragons physically couldn't of existed? What's to say they still don't?
Theres nothing to say whether or not dragons were an evolutionary mistake, a throw-back, a normal evolutionary creation, or neither. But if they didn't exist, you still ahve a puzzle to solve. Where did the stories come from, and how did the all turn out so similar around the globe? The topic is a stand-still, with no direct yes or no answers, because people refuse to beleive what doesn't fit our laws of physics or our views and understandings. Its human instinct to do such a thing. We can't comprehend what we don't see or don't wnat to beleive.
So stop inflicting your opinions on others. You can make up your mind, but its a petty argument to prove or disprove an unknown fact. Let people make up their own beliefs, and olny time can tell wether we'll ever know what they turly are, and when, where, and if they ever existed.
Thats just my view on the matter as a whole.

Trasher258 · Sep 26, 2010 10:15 PM

You are talking about the possiblities based on facts that of organisms currently known today. It's funny that we have to draw on known facts and such for proving something that may be different from what we think... not that it isn't wrong or right to do so. There's impossible when you expect a certian combonation to work and produce a specific result but it doesn't. Possible is finding a way around the conditions hindering that result.

Neotyguy40 has some solid points but I can't say I agree with all of them. Now if only I had some sort of arguement to add to the topic... but I'm empty handed at present.

riverhippo · Sep 27, 2010 12:10 AM

Maybe somebody way back when successfully killed all of the dragons and harvested their wings for magic, like the Sorcoress tried. When the dragons did die, they died winglessly in vain (isn't that a pretty picture). Just a thought.

Idea for Spyro project 14- "Spyro: Return of the Sorcoress (For PS3, PS2, Wii, and Xbox 360)

The Mad Thatter · Oct 01, 2010 9:19 PM

All scientific evidence goes against the existence of the dragons we know - but that doesn't mean to say they never existed. But, however, I don't think they would have been firebreathing and magical as we portray them - they'd just be highly agile, intelligent and strong winged reptiles.
It's like heaven - there is no evidence that it doesn't exist or does exist. It's a matter of opinion and how open-minded you are, really.

Neotyguy40 · Oct 01, 2010 10:26 PM

The Mad Thatter wrote:

All scientific evidence goes against the existence of the dragons we know - but that doesn't mean to say they never existed. But, however, I don't think they would have been firebreathing and magical as we portray them - they'd just be highly agile, intelligent and strong winged reptiles.
It's like heaven - there is no evidence that it doesn't exist or does exist. It's a matter of opinion and how open-minded you are, really.

A reptile, or any other cold blooded creature can not become 'intelligent' like a human is. In all but the least stressful conditions, cold blooded animals rely on instinct rather than past experiences. They can't learn or think like a bird or mammal can.

If there were to be an intelligent dragon, it would need to be a bird, which wouldn't be completely farfetched either if dragons existed, seeing how many dragons are depicted with feathered scales or wings.

I still do not believe a dragon ever existed, but I'm thinking that maybe if the velociraptor could fly, then it would be very similar to the idea of a dragon.

JazzJackrabbit · Oct 02, 2010 1:44 AM

The Mad Thatter wrote:

All scientific evidence goes against the existence of the dragons we know - but that doesn't mean to say they never existed. But, however, I don't think they would have been firebreathing and magical as we portray them - they'd just be highly agile, intelligent and strong winged reptiles.
It's like heaven - there is no evidence that it doesn't exist or does exist. It's a matter of opinion and how open-minded you are, really.

It's not about opinions or open-mindedness. Dragons either did or did not exist, and we can't change that with opinions. It's like Area 51. People think it exists, but I think it is a creation of science-fiction writers. Still, A51 might exist.

pur · Oct 03, 2010 12:36 PM

Just a slight biological nitpick;

Neotyguy40 wrote:

For example, there is no animal in the world with more then 4 limbs, so it is extremely unlikely that a dragon could exist if it had wings separate from their arms.

While what the bulk of what you're saying is true, there are loads of animals with more than four limbs, probably millions of animals. I think you mean that there are no vertebrates with more than four limbs, as the spinal column wouldn't be strong enough to support the weight of more than four limbs.

riverhippo · Oct 03, 2010 12:46 PM

pur wrote:

Just a slight biological nitpick;
Neotyguy40 wrote:
For example, there is no animal in the world with more then 4 limbs, so it is extremely unlikely that a dragon could exist if it had wings separate from their arms.
While what the bulk of what you're saying is true, there are loads of animals with more than four limbs, probably millions of animals. I think you mean that there are no vertebrates with more than four limbs, as the spinal column wouldn't be strong enough to support the weight of more than four limbs.

Well, yeah. A centipede has dozens of legs but it has no limbs.

The Mad Thatter · Oct 03, 2010 5:17 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

The Mad Thatter wrote:
All scientific evidence goes against the existence of the dragons we know - but that doesn't mean to say they never existed. But, however, I don't think they would have been firebreathing and magical as we portray them - they'd just be highly agile, intelligent and strong winged reptiles.
It's like heaven - there is no evidence that it doesn't exist or does exist. It's a matter of opinion and how open-minded you are, really.
A reptile, or any other cold blooded creature can not become 'intelligent' like a human is. In all but the least stressful conditions, cold blooded animals rely on instinct rather than past experiences. They can't learn or think like a bird or mammal can.
If there were to be an intelligent dragon, it would need to be a bird, which wouldn't be completely farfetched either if dragons existed, seeing how many dragons are depicted with feathered scales or wings.
I still do not believe a dragon ever existed, but I'm thinking that maybe if the velociraptor could fly, then it would be very similar to the idea of a dragon.

That depends entirely on viewpoint. Intelligence comes in a number of different forms.

It is unlikely that dragons ever existed as we imagine them, because creatures we imagine hardly ever exist in such ways. If dragons did exist, then they were probably like common lizards. Like Komodo Dragons - the spine can't cope with four legs (and I'm talking about skeleton legs, here) and wings. Insects are different matters.

pur · Oct 03, 2010 7:00 PM

riverhippo wrote:

pur wrote:
Just a slight biological nitpick;
Neotyguy40 wrote:
For example, there is no animal in the world with more then 4 limbs, so it is extremely unlikely that a dragon could exist if it had wings separate from their arms.
While what the bulk of what you're saying is true, there are loads of animals with more than four limbs, probably millions of animals. I think you mean that there are no vertebrates with more than four limbs, as the spinal column wouldn't be strong enough to support the weight of more than four limbs.
Well, yeah. A centipede has dozens of legs but it has no limbs.

Legs ARE limbs. They're any body part used for locomotion.

Neotyguy40 · Oct 03, 2010 9:33 PM

pur wrote:

Just a slight biological nitpick;
Neotyguy40 wrote:
For example, there is no animal in the world with more then 4 limbs, so it is extremely unlikely that a dragon could exist if it had wings separate from their arms.
While what the bulk of what you're saying is true, there are loads of animals with more than four limbs, probably millions of animals. I think you mean that there are no vertebrates with more than four limbs, as the spinal column wouldn't be strong enough to support the weight of more than four limbs.

I had a brain fart...

The Mad Thatter wrote:

Neotyguy40 wrote:
The Mad Thatter wrote:
All scientific evidence goes against the existence of the dragons we know - but that doesn't mean to say they never existed. But, however, I don't think they would have been firebreathing and magical as we portray them - they'd just be highly agile, intelligent and strong winged reptiles.
It's like heaven - there is no evidence that it doesn't exist or does exist. It's a matter of opinion and how open-minded you are, really.
A reptile, or any other cold blooded creature can not become 'intelligent' like a human is. In all but the least stressful conditions, cold blooded animals rely on instinct rather than past experiences. They can't learn or think like a bird or mammal can.
If there were to be an intelligent dragon, it would need to be a bird, which wouldn't be completely farfetched either if dragons existed, seeing how many dragons are depicted with feathered scales or wings.
I still do not believe a dragon ever existed, but I'm thinking that maybe if the velociraptor could fly, then it would be very similar to the idea of a dragon.
That depends entirely on viewpoint. Intelligence comes in a number of different forms.
It is unlikely that dragons ever existed as we imagine them, because creatures we imagine hardly ever exist in such ways. If dragons did exist, then they were probably like common lizards. Like Komodo Dragons - the spine can't cope with four legs (and I'm talking about skeleton legs, here) and wings. Insects are different matters.

Agreed. While almost every culture in the world has some idea of a dragon, many of them are based off of completely different things.

riverhippo · Oct 03, 2010 9:45 PM

I would agree that there are no large 4+ limbed animals on Earth, but not because its not possible.

Swaffy · Oct 04, 2010 4:20 AM

As a Bible-believing Christian, I believe that dragons [the original name
for dinosaurs and even flying dragons] did in fact exist. I believe that
flying, fire-breathing dragons also existed. I believe that humans killed off
land-dwelling dragons and ceased to exist, and that water-dwelling
dragons still exist. And this is not me trying to live in an alternate reality. I
used to deny the existence of dragons [including land-dwelling and water-
dwelling dragons] until I began studying about their true history and truths
about their existence.

A great Bible book to look through is the book of Job [Joe+b=Job].

Also, these videos give some "down deep" information about the existence
of dinosaurs [made by Kent Hovind]:

Watch the section called: Seminars (7)
http://freehovind.com/watch

[hr:0ee04b3c3d]
If you disagree with my beliefs that dragons exist[ed], you can keep your
opinions to yourself instead of trying to argue against me. Not like you're
going to change my beliefs anyways, so don't waste your time trying.

pur · Oct 04, 2010 10:44 AM

Oh God, not Kent Hovind. I'm sorry, but I cannot take that guy seriously AT ALL.

#26 Sep 24, 2010 10:55 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#27 Sep 25, 2010 3:31 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#28 Sep 25, 2010 4:39 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#29 Sep 25, 2010 11:00 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#30 Sep 26, 2010 2:18 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#31 Sep 26, 2010 3:34 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#32 Sep 26, 2010 4:28 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#33 Sep 26, 2010 9:34 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#34 Sep 26, 2010 1:10 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#35 Sep 26, 2010 7:27 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#36 Sep 26, 2010 9:47 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#37 Sep 26, 2010 10:06 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#38 Sep 26, 2010 10:15 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#39 Sep 27, 2010 12:10 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#40 Oct 01, 2010 9:19 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#41 Oct 01, 2010 10:26 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#42 Oct 02, 2010 1:44 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#43 Oct 03, 2010 12:36 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#44 Oct 03, 2010 12:46 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#45 Oct 03, 2010 5:17 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#46 Oct 03, 2010 7:00 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#47 Oct 03, 2010 9:33 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#48 Oct 03, 2010 9:45 PM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#49 Oct 04, 2010 4:20 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

#50 Oct 04, 2010 10:44 AM

Re: Dragons. Are they real?

Board footer