It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's up with Dragons ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Just watched ANIMAL PLANET: DRAGONS on Discovery Channel. Very entertaining fiction. One of the questions posed by researchers was that how come so many different cultures have legends about dragons when these cultures never interacted with one another. Some speculate that dragons were real. My response to this is that perhaps this is just man's way of interpreting the dinosaur bones and ancient stories about dinosaurs passed on in culture.

[edit on 2-10-2005 by hotsheets]

[edit on 3-10-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I dont understand why they always refer to dragons as fiction. They are a legend in almost every culture. Why is it so hard to believe that they might have existed? I believe that they did. Call me crazy.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I guess because at this point there is no scientific fact that support dragons existed.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
like people have said dragons have been recorded in myths from all different cultures yet there has been no fossils found maybe the bones of a dragon are made of something that wont fossilize and just decomposes



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
^ but wouldn't that run counter to every other organism animals/plants on this planet?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
perhaps our ideas of dinosaurs are skewed? maybe certain dinosaurs have been misidentified? maybe what we think certain dinosaurs may have looked like is off a bit? just an idea.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Hi hotsheets and justdj, you guys may like the following link of a movie its kinda long and talks mostly about dinosaurs, but the man mentions dragons. He has a interesting theory. The man talks from a bible point of view, so if your not a beleiver you may have to wade through it, but he is interesting to listen to and makes some things make sense about dragons.

(right click save-as; or play if you got a good connection speed)
www.nwcreation.net...



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Dragons are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs coexisted with man. Written accounts, descriptions, and detailed drawings in cultures all over the world match up exactly with dinosaurs. These dragons were around even 500-600 years ago, but generally people sought them out and killed them because dinosaurs were a nuisance.

Mainstream science doesn't want to admit it because it conflicts the evolutionary models. Not that it has to conflict with evolutionary models. Evolution can be true or not true, but it messes with the standard explanations and dating so much that they won't consider thousands of drawings and eyewitness accounts that match "dragons" with dinosaurs, even in minute detail.

some evidence in link below

www.s8int.com...

[edit on 3-10-2005 by randman]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
^ that's what i figure too. Just a side note...i heard jurassic park 4 is coming out.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Most myths have dragons that can fly, for a dragon to fly it would need the same bone structure of a bird so maybe the myths are built on fossils of pterydactls and archyterx(or something like that) these were winged dinosaurs



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I've always wondered how the "breathe fire" thing works. No known creature have been known to breathe "fire". I thought that perhaps it was a dinosaur that spits venom to burn/blind its prey. So the myths took that and exagerated into "fire".



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Stories of dragons probably stem from a combination of a number of different sources, including misidentified dinosaur fossils, animals which were unknown at the time and observations and legends surrounding common lizards.

I agree that dinosaur remains offer one source for the origins of the dragon mythos. It is not difficult to misidentify the fossil remains of unknown creatures. This was evidenced when dinosaur bones were first excavated in Europe and were believed to be the remains of giant humans (Reference). It is not inconceivable that past civilisations have encountered dinosaur fossils and, lacking any sense of geological age or the process of fossilisation, labelled them the remains of dragons.

It is also possible that stories concerning dragons may have begun, in some instances, as tales of exotic creatures were brought back to Europe by travellers and explorers. Creatures such as crocodiles or alligators bear similar characteristics to many descriptions of dragons. They are large reptilian predators with thick, scaly skin who are feared and respected by those familiar with them. Is it beyond the realm of possibility to theorise that tales of such creatures may have been imported into Europe and subsequently exaggerated, as tales of exotic animals often are? Tales of mountain gorillas, for example, often portrayed them as monstrous, savage creatures which would attack trespassers and rape women. Of course, we know this to be false, but it does illustrate how stories of unknown or exotic animals can become overblown tales of fearsome beasts.

In terms of their relationship to fire, this may be due to the relationship reptiles have with heat due to their cold blood and need to make use of an external heat source. Lizards will bask on hot rocks during the day, for example, to warm their bodies. Perhaps ancient civilisations made this observation but took it further and made the concept of heat an intimate part of the dragon mythos. After all, dragons are not the only reptiles associated with heat and fire. In mythology, salamanders are lizard-like creatures which live in fires. Heradlry from Europe depicts salamanders wreathed in flames and early travellers to China were told that clothes made from salamander skin were impervious to fire. So the link between fire and reptiles seems not to be limited to dragons.

Less obvious explanations for dragons include shooting stars and comets. It seems strange to us, but one must consider the mindset of people who lacked a detailed knowledge of the nature of space and heavenly bodies. If you did not know that a shooting star was a piece of rock burning up in the atmosphere, what would it appear to be? It would be a flaming object streaking through the sky. Lacking a sufficient explanation, it is plausible that ancient peoples may have thought that these objects were creatures which were capable of flight and were associated with flames, both of which are classic elements of the dragon mythos. Certainly we know that comets have, in the past, been associated with dragons and that comet tails have been held to be those of dragons (Reference).

Finally, it is enirely possible that dragons stem purely from the human imagination and are not based on anything other than fantasy. After all, one need only look at our movies to see that humans are capable of inventing wholly fictional creatures.

[edit on 3/10/05 by Jeremiah25]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
You, again leave me no other choice but to give you a way above vote. Brilliant reply. Bravo!!!



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
What about the fact that there is two major types of dragons and the attitude towards them is completely different we have on one hand the traditional western dragon scaly,winged and regarded as evil and linked to the devil now on the other hand we have the eastern dragon or the oriental dragon that has no wings yet has horns and a "beard" and in asian myths is regarded with respect and is worshipped .
so how can the same thing be represented in two different ways?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by obiwan15
What about the fact that there is two major types of dragons and the attitude towards them is completely different we have on one hand the traditional western dragon scaly,winged and regarded as evil and linked to the devil now on the other hand we have the eastern dragon or the oriental dragon that has no wings yet has horns and a "beard" and in asian myths is regarded with respect and is worshipped .
so how can the same thing be represented in two different ways?


You're right, the two views are almost diametrically opposed and no single factor, or combination of factors, can easily account for this difference. However, I personally feel that the difference in the way Western and Eastern cultures view dragons is due to the portrayal of dargons through religious mythology and the association in the West of dragons with the Devil.

Dragons are alluded to in several points throughout the Bible, but are featured prominently in Revelation, which also links dragons with Satan. Revelation 20:2, for example, states that



He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.


This identification of Satan as a dragon is repeated in Revelation 12:3 and 12:4, which states



And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.


Finally, in Revelation 12:9, the Bible states categorically that



And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


So you can see that Christianity draws a clear association between Satan and dragons. This association also goes some way towards explaining the difference in physical appearance, since Western dragons would naturally inherit those features associated with Satan. Hence, they are seen as having scaly skin, wings, horns and are associated with fire and destruction.

Tales and legends concerning dragons were at their most popular during medieval times in Europe, which is the period in which the power of the Church was at its greatest. I believe that it is this correlation in Christianity between dragons and Satan that has resulted in dragons being portrayed as evil, predatory creatures. Evidence of this can be further seen in the fact that there exist a series of stories in which great Christian saints slay dragons. The story of Saint George and the less well known story of Saint Mercurialis both depict a saint killing a dragon to save the faithful.

Dragons were also regraded during the medieval period as symbols of apostasy, treachery, anger and envy, which are all traits associated with Satan. The lack of this malevolent association, combined with a less rigid and dominant religious hierarchy in the East has resulted in the opposing views of dragons with which we are familiar. At least, that's my opinion. What do you guys think?

[edit on 3/10/05 by Jeremiah25]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
well said

maybe thats why western dragons are said to breathe fire because fire ties in with the whole devil thing



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Interesting how many dragon legends (stories of supposed real life dragons) comes from the UK dating from the Dark and Middle ages... Here's quite thorough collection of these stories/legends...
UK Dragons
(Note how many stories have its origin in Somerset, Essex and Yorkshire...)
And many of these stories refers to the dragons as Worms or Wyrms...

And the plot thickens even more. In many of the legends (not only these from England) the dragons were able to talk, and it other cases it demanded village virgins/maidens... (To devour I suppose?
)



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I think that an even simpler explanation of dragons, as opposed to finding fossils and interpreting them as such (tho that indoubtedly happened also), is that man does come into contact with very big reptiles, so its not unreasonable for there to be stories about really big and really mean ones, whether its based on giant snakes, crocodiles, or monitor lizards, etc etc.


Originally posted by mrsdudara
Why is it so hard to believe that they might have existed?

Because there are no phyiscal remains of them anywhere in the world, and because giant fire breathing flying lizard monsters is pretty unbeleivable on the face of it??


randman
Dragons are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs coexisted with man

Dinosaurs do not really match the description of dragons. If man and dinos coexisted, then dragons wouldn't be big flying scaly fire breathing things, or at least there'd be reports of the ones that don't even begin to resemble that. Besides, all evidence shows that dinosaurs died out long before man existed.

because it conflicts the evolutionary models.

No it doesn't. There's no evolutionary reason why dinosaurs and man can't co-exist, its just that the evidence rather clearly shows that they didn't.

that they won't consider thousands of drawings and eyewitness accounts that match "dragons" with dinosaurs, even in minute detail.

And those descriptions don't match dinosaurs, 'big lizard' isn't a good description of a dinosaur. Also, why take those reports as hard evidence? THere are simply no remains. If they were all over the world, up until the middle ages, then we'd find their remains all over the place, hell they'd probably still be alive, I don't think any species that was spread across the whole planet has gone extinct in that time.

www.s8int.com...

What did you find convincing from that page?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Well, when people make detailed drawings of Brontosauruses or whatever they are called now, and we see these detailed drawings today, along with thousands of other drawings, written descriptions, etc,...that match exactly with dinosaurs such as stegasuaruses, I think the logical conclusion is these creatures were indeed seen, not as bones, but as real, living creatures by the people that said they saw them.

You have to remember that 800 years in the case of some of these drawings, or a couple thousand in the case of Roman records, is not that long ago that we should dismiss these accounts when they match with what we know about dinosaurs.

As far as breathing fire and more exotic descriptions, I am sure there are exagerrations, but it appears a more detailed description of dragons includes various kinds of dinosaurs not just the more famous flying reptiles.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by randman
Well, when people make detailed drawings of Brontosauruses

Lets be precise, we're not talking about a detailed drawing of a brontosaurus, we're talking, at best, about a vague and general sauropod like shape, which, really, isn't saying much. Big body, long tail, long neck, little head. And, agian, where are the remains of the vast globe spanning herds of these animals?


that match exactly with dinosaurs such as stegasuaruses

A stegosaurus is a pretty weird animal, and it would be rather impressive if there were detailed and accurate renderings of them by pre-modern peoples, however, there aren't, so this isn't an issue.


I think the logical conclusion is these creatures were indeed seen, not as bones, but as real, living creatures

Unfortunately that is not a logical conclusion. The animals went extinct 65 million years ago. There are no remains of them that are younger than that. The stories we hear about are mythical, a big hero will slay the dragon, usually with the help of a wizard, a magical sword, and a super-sheild. They're legends. If dragons mean that dinosaurs so recently walked the earth, then Zeus is sitting in a big gold throne atop a particular mountain in greece, and there's a one armed grendel skeleton in denmark somewhere.




You have to remember that 800 years in the case of some of these drawings, or a couple thousand in the case of Roman records, is not that long ago

I agree, which is why the idea that there were vast populations of flying and ground dwelling dragons stalking the earth so recently but that they've disappeared altogether without even leaving fossil remains, is silly.

Also, you mention roman records, however the onyl roman records that I am familiar with is of a sort of side-show freak-show that had a dried up corpse that was claimed to be an ancient dragon. And, interestingly, when
europe was still civilized in the times of rome, there simply aren't reports of dragons laying waste to the countryside, whereas once rome falls and europe enters a superstition and fear ridden dark ages, we get more stories about dragons. Seems when the people are relatively educated and critically thinking, there are no reports of dragons, remove their sense, and they start babbling about dragons which supposedly have been there forever.


that we should dismiss these accounts when they match with what we know about dinosaurs.
Thing is, they don't match what we know about dinosaurs. Dragons are big lizards, dinosaurs were not, dragons have leathery wings, dinosaurs do not, dragons even have monstrous scales, dinosuars do not, they're covered in feathers as much as they are covered by their naked (tho of course scaled) skin. The descriptions of dragons does not match what dinosaurs are.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join