Dragons

[The Green Knight]

Well I saw the show and I can now say that I believe in Dragons. But that’s really nothing new since I believed in them before I saw it.

Say WHAT!!!

Yeah totally, what’s not to believe? Although I did think that they murdered the concept of a dragon in their program. A dragon is basically just a big reptile, right? It doesn’t need both fire and flight, or either for that matter, to be a dragon.

And of course, when you take away the fire and wings, what are you left with? A Dinosaur. Yep that’s right. A knight meets up with a T-rex (or whatever dinos are native to Europe) and kills it, calling it a dragon. The Dragon falls in the mud and years later a scientist digs him up and calls him a dinosaur.

Whala!

Here’s a link for the official definition of “Dragon”: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dragon

[ottoatm]

Interesting take - kind of a let-down though... If thats the case... I think I prefer them as fictious and flyin' around belching fire.

[doctorsparkles]

A knight meets up with a T-rex (or whatever dinos are native to Europe) and kills it, calling it a dragon. The Dragon falls in the mud and years later a scientist digs him up and calls him a dinosaur.

Except that t-rex became extinct 60 million years before even the most basic hominids roamed the earth.
If anything, the legacy of dragons (if they had existed, and I still don't believe they did) was passed down from our primitive ancestors to the present day. This would be similar to the discovery of 20,000 year old homo florensiensis (prehistoric Hobbit-like humans) fossils in Indonesia, and the local folk tales about Ebu Gogo, a small furry man.

[HenrytheV]

Except that t-rex became extinct 60 million years before even the most basic hominids roamed the earth.
If anything, the legacy of dragons (if they had existed, and I still don't believe they did) was passed down from our primitive ancestors to the present day. This would be similar to the discovery of 20,000 year old homo florensiensis (prehistoric Hobbit-like humans) fossils in Indonesia, and the local folk tales about Ebu Gogo, a small furry man.

Did you know that the moon is moving away from Earth about 3 inches a year? If you went back in time 60 million years, the Earth wouldn't be able to support life, the moon would just be too close. The sun is also shrinking every year, so again if you went back 60 million years, the sun would be too hot, and nothing would be able to live on Earth. Also, why are there galaxies that are spinning backwards? And why are there still comets? If the universe was a old as the evolution theory says it is, we wouldn't have comets. Just wanted to let you know of a couple of flaws with the evolution theory.

[doctorsparkles]

Did you know that the moon is moving away from Earth about 3 inches a year? If you went back in time 60 million years, the Earth wouldn't be able to support life, the moon would just be too close. The sun is also shrinking every year, so again if you went back 60 million years, the sun would be too hot, and nothing would be able to live on Earth. Also, why are there galaxies that are spinning backwards? And why are there still comets? If the universe was a old as the evolution theory says it is, we wouldn't have comets. Just wanted to let you know of a couple of flaws with the evolution theory.

That's 38 millimeters a year, or about an inch and a half. By my calculations, that means it's moved about 2280 kilometers in the past 60 million years. That puts the moon at about 382,123 kilometers away, as opposed to our current 384,403 (this, by the way, is assuming that it's moving away at a constant rate of 38 millimeters a year). That's not much of a difference.
As for the sun, it's about 5 billion years old (and will die at about 10 billion years). 60 million years is only 12 thousandths of the sun's lifespan so far... it was middle aged then, and it's middle aged now.
I can't say much about backwards spinning galaxies or the existence of comets, but I can say that the age of the universe commonly accepted by cosmologists is 13.7 years (others think older). Find me an evolution theorist who believes life has existed on Earth longer, and you deserve a pat on the back.
Just wanted to let you know that your "evolutionary theory is flawed" argument is flawed.

P.S. That's not to say that evolutionary theory isn't flawed... there are certainly inconsistencies that need to be hammered out... but the arguments presented will do nothing to convince me of it.

[HenrytheV]

Well, has anyone ever seen a live or fossilized "in between species", like a lizard evolving into a bird or vise versa? And why aren't monkeys still evolving today? And why isn't there a ton of dust on the moon, only 1/2 inch. Did you know "cavemen" were actually people with arthritis? The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old- it was dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years. There is tons of evidence for a young earth, like 6,000 years old.

[doctorsparkles]

Well, has anyone ever seen a live or fossilized "in between species", like a lizard evolving into a bird or vise versa? And why aren't monkeys still evolving today? And why isn't there a ton of dust on the moon, only 1/2 inch. Did you know "cavemen" were actually people with arthritis? The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old- it was dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years. There is tons of evidence for a young earth, like 6,000 years old.

I'm not going to discuss evolution versus creationism any further here, as it's likely to come to blows. If you want to continue this discussion, send me a PM.

[HenrytheV]

Sorry, ya, I'll PM you sometime. I think dinosaurs are just old lizards though.

[ottoatm]

Wow... you guys are really goin' at it... heh heh heh.

Well, I did hear a national geographic report that found human remains in Mississippi of all places, dating back to the late dinosaur period (I forgot what it's called)... and older than 6,000 yrs... I DO think it's possible that your right... perhaps Dragons were just dinosaurs... but who cares whether it's an old or new world... it shouldn't shake anyone's faith

Whether that is true or not, I have to tell you, the validity and/or lack of validity towards theory of evolution never had any real impact whatsoever on my personal beliefs - from agnostic, atheist and christian, if you believe in something, you should rely on your personal conviction, and not on the conviction or theories of others... BUT... back to the topic... I think it's possible that humans and T-Rex tangled... or not... I guess it doesn't really matter, does it?

[HenrytheV]

Thankfully we are battling it out mentally, not physically

[Formendacil]

Well, I believe in dragons.

Real, flying, fire-breathing dragons!

I realise that there is pretty much nil evidence that they exist or have existed, but it's more fun, I feel, to believe in a mythical creature than to have to try and rationalise everything.

Of course, I also believe in the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Numenor, so what can I say?

[The Green Knight]

Interesting take - kind of a let-down though... If thats the case... I think I prefer them as fictious and flyin' around belching fire.

Whoops! sorry about that. I didn't make myself clear I guess. I think Dragons could fly and breath fire too, just probably not all of them. For instance many of our modern animals have various, well designed ways of defending themselves. The skunk, the porcupine and the spitting cobra are prime examples of this. Yet, if you discovered the bones or fossilized remains of these same animals, who would know that they had these special defense features? Now take a look at these dinos:
The Parasaurolophus:

Would you look at that nose piece. If any of the dinos could breath fire I think it would be this guy. Also good to note that the T rex also has an impressive nasal cavity.

Who’s to say he didn’t have some kinda “hot snot” device. How about this one:
Pteranodon:

A flying lizard with two legs. Rather like the wyvern no?

Except that t-rex became extinct 60 million years before even the most basic hominids roamed the earth.

Well really it's all a matter of what you want to believe.

The fact that Dragons existed <---What the people of the middle ages and before believed as a truth about the world around them.

Or

The fact that Dinosaurs went extinct before man evolved <---What scientists of our modern world believe about the world billions of years ago.

Is there any reason to believe one over the other? A good question to ask might be: “How do I know what I believe is true?” And if I may offer some evidence in defense of my hypothesis…

Exibit A: Cave drawings:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinocarving.html

Exibit B: The fish:
It isn’t unheard of for some creature that the evolution hypothesis has deemed extinct to show up alive and kicking in our headlines. The coelacanth fish is a prime example of this. And if they had it wrong about the fish, what’s not to say that they didn’t put the right date on the dinosaurs extinction?

Couple these with the world wide legends of Dragons and I think I have a pretty sound case.
Oh, and if this isn’t enough proof I’d certainly be willing to provide some more links.

Now of course if you look at my hypothesis from an evolutionary biased point of view (or worldview as some might call it) it sounds ludicrous. But hey, throw that out and it makes perfect sense.

Anyway, it sounds like you two will have some fun PMing each other. But just a thought. If you were wrong about your beliefs and your worldview, wouldn't you want to know?

[Azaghal]

Not to mention that there are many descriptions of dragons in premodern yet historical times that fit the descriptions of known dinosaurs. My favorite is the Irish Stegosaurus.

Not to mention the pleisaur that Japanese fishing boat caught in the 70's...

[davee123]

Just wanted to let you know of a couple of flaws with the evolution theory.

Heh, we were actually discussing this on Lugnet last week

As for the dragon tie-in:
The show was kind of sad. The hydrogen theory just doesn't hold water. It's an interesting premise, but no. Ever seen a balloon filled with hydrogen that gets popped? Or a bunsen burner? The flame produced by breathing out and igniting hydrogen would just be pathetic, I'd think. You'd have to have so much hydrogen in order to get a decent spurt that it'd just be next to impossible. And the flame would be so short lived, it'd go right out before doing any serious damage to anything but dried leaves and wood.

And the platinum deposits idea? Pft. Platinum's a rare metal. How exactly did they go around finding this stuff? And how on earth would there be enough to keep a whole species of dragons going?

As for legends of dragons being dinosaurs? I could believe it. I saw a rather interesting special on how ancient Greeks and Romans possibly interpreted fossil remains. It explained how certain large animal remains could be interpreted as the mythical beasts that they described in detail, as well as the idea that the 'titans' ruled the earth and then were overthrown.

It talked about how Greeks believed that griffins layed their eggs on the ground and protected gold. And interestingly enough, there were protoceratops remains all over gold-rich areas east of Europe. And since protoceratops had the beak-shaped skull and four legs, it looked like a cross between a lion and a bird. Some remains even appeared to have wings. And sure enough, they laid their eggs on the ground. They also had some detail on connecting woolly mammoths and Cyclops' too, since there was simply a large eye-socket looking hole in the middle of the skull.

Who's to say that they didn't just unearthed some dinosaur remains and assumed it was some mythical, fire-breathing beast? They might've just decided to call it a dragon...

DaveE

[doctorsparkles]

Ever seen a balloon filled with hydrogen that gets popped? Or a bunsen burner? The flame produced by breathing out and igniting hydrogen would just be pathetic, I'd think. You'd have to have so much hydrogen in order to get a decent spurt that it'd just be next to impossible. And the flame would be so short lived, it'd go right out before doing any serious damage to anything but dried leaves and wood.

And the platinum deposits idea? Pft. Platinum's a rare metal. How exactly did they go around finding this stuff? And how on earth would there be enough to keep a whole species of dragons going?

Exactly. I don't think I touched on the platinum thing earlier, but I've definitely seen hydrogen explosions, and it's certainly not something that could be used as an adequate defense, especially if the hydrogen is used to aid in flight as well. One burst, and the dragon would fall right out of the sky.
I will have to concede that a defense mechanism that causes chemical burns could be feasible though.

As for legends of dragons being dinosaurs? I could believe it. I saw a rather interesting special on how ancient Greeks and Romans possibly interpreted fossil remains. It explained how certain large animal remains could be interpreted as the mythical beasts that they described in detail, as well as the idea that the 'titans' ruled the earth and then were overthrown.

It talked about how Greeks believed that griffins layed their eggs on the ground and protected gold. And interestingly enough, there were protoceratops remains all over gold-rich areas east of Europe. And since protoceratops had the beak-shaped skull and four legs, it looked like a cross between a lion and a bird. Some remains even appeared to have wings. And sure enough, they laid their eggs on the ground. They also had some detail on connecting woolly mammoths and Cyclops' too, since there was simply a large eye-socket looking hole in the middle of the skull.

Who's to say that they didn't just unearthed some dinosaur remains and assumed it was some mythical, fire-breathing beast? They might've just decided to call it a dragon...

This is what I believe, because it just seems the most logical to me.

Yes, it is possible that there are surviving dinosaurs in the most remote and underdeveloped areas of the world, but in an area like Europe, you'd have to work pretty hard to convince me of it. Marine animals, such as the coelacanth, are much more likely to be incorrectly labeled as extinct. I suppose the plesiosaur is even possible, though the example cited was quite likely just a decayed basking shark. The remains disappeared before they could be examined by experts, unfortunately, so no one will ever no for sure.
But seriously, I don't want to stray from the original topic any more, particularly because I'm a little bit tired of the subject of evolution and extinction anyway, so please don't quote or reply to any of the things I've said on that subject any more.
I'd also like everyone to know that I'm not trying to shake anybody's faith or anything. Unless your faith rests on a particularly weak foundation, there's no way I'd be able to manage it even if I tried. Believe what you want to believe and I'll do the same.