I think Dragons are real because, when you say the word Dragon, everyone has just about the same idea, Why?, because they've probably seen pictures, people may dismiss this idea because no-one has ever seen them, but I think that is the wrong attitude because there are many things that we know are there but we've never seen it, like the earth's core for instance, No-one has ever seen that, but we know it exists.

I believe is the sock gnomes. I mean, who else could have taken those missing socks.

Seriously though, there is no proof of dragons (outside of dinosaurs). Sure people have similar ideas about what they look like, but many people also believe that god looks like an old man with a white beard, that Satan has horns, that many fictinous creatures looked how we are told that they looked. Would you know the appearence of a dragon if you were never told what they looked like? Think about it.

According to most Scienctists this is impossible.

Yes, but these are the same scientists who gave us the "brontosaurus" before they realized they had it all wrong yet again....

As for the question of "sightnings"...most should realize that many different cultures have stories of such creatures, from South America, India, China, Europe, etc. and that range from pre-biblical times, up to even the modern age if you include such creatures as Nessie, Champ, or Mokelemobembe (spelling?).... Perhaps most rampant in medieval times, along with another possible cryptid, the unicorn.

I'm sorry, I've seen many references to "brontosaurus" with a chuckle, and I was wondering what the story with this is? I used to be a big dinosaur fanatic as a kid (as lots of little boys were), but I never heard anything about the brontosaurus being wrong?

ShadowXIX is correct, they basically had the wrong HEAD on it the whole time we were growing up as kids and fascinated by dinos...

So, if they got such things SO wrong....hence my chuckling at the term...as there really is no such thing as a brontosaurus...

Originally posted by neodragon
Dragons have to be real

No they don't

Dragons are about the biggest baddest monster that the imaginations of primitive cultures could think up.

The standard image of a dragon is wrong because such a beast has wings yet its enormous size would prevent it from flying.

You say there are written about all over the world? True but they are not the same dragon. There is not just one single definition of a dragon.

Western Dragon - King of Serpents: In the west the Dragon is the drakon ("sharp sighted," "watchful") of the Greeks.
The Romans called it draco, and the british know it as drake as in "firedrake".
Some have no feet, some have wings and feet, some have no wings and feet.
This dragon has a crest on its head and a beard under its chin.
All have teeth, some have horns some have antlers, some are black with green bellies, some red, some yellow and some the colour of ash.
Many eat poisonous herbs and their breath infects the air and many jealously guard treasure deep beneath the earth.
A dragon with two legs is called a Wyvern.
They breath smoke and fire adn their roar is enough to make people die of fright.
These have battled Gods, saints and knights to the death.
In a dragons head is the dragonstone (the draconce) a brilliant red gem with the power to cure.
This dragons blood is a miraculous elixir that heals and allows the drinker to understand the animals.
When mixed with honey and oil the fat of a dragon restores sight

I could describe many more type of dragons but with so much veriety and impossibilies in just one I don't think anyone can think there is any truth to such creatures apart from being the products of a primitive imagination.

I could describe many more type of dragons but with so much veriety and impossibilies in just one I don't think anyone can think there is any truth to such creatures apart from being the products of a primitive imagination

Yes but what is the basis for this common idea of a large reptile enemy of man? You're saying that imagination is the SOLE basis... I don't buy it. There is SOMETHING to this. Whether actual beasts now extinct, or a racial memory of back when we were little mammals hiding from dinos, there is SOMETHING that this stems from....

Yes but what is the basis for this common idea of a large reptile enemy of man?

I would agree if all dragons were the enemy of man, or had just one trait that was shared by every single species that we could find would probably stem from the original species if one existed.

However the dragon of china is seen as a spiritual benevolent ruler. No malignant monster lurking in dark caverns, this dragon is all rythmic energy, joyously whirling and leaping among the clouds.

Many dragons are actually just snakes (obvious from there appearences). I think that the ancients has the tendency to exagerate things like this. The dragon of India could actually be a python. Some ancient people even thought that the rainbow was a serpent.

Many dragons look absolutley nothing like the typical dragon image, I think that dragon is just a word for monster as it seems to be used for many different types of mythological creatures (not just reptiles either).

Basically I think that the typical image of a dragon stems from exagerations of actual animals.

But I am open to the posibility that I'm wrong

I was proofreading a text about medieval corsairs for Distributed Proofreaders the other day (either in PP or about to be published by Project Gutenberg, I'll keep an eye open for it), and in the book was related a story about a great serpent or lizard that had taken abode near a city in the Holy Land. The word "dragon" was carefully avoided, but the similarity was impossible to miss. The knight in question observed the creature and saw it was vulnerable in a spot on its belly, and after creating a dummy "serpent" and training himself and his dogs on the facsimile, the knight went and killed the beast.

To my knowledge, this is the latest date of a dragon-type historical(?) episode. Was it propaganda? That the tale is attached to a knight of one of the great Orders certainly raises the question, as does the fact that the Orders had suffered crushing defeats in the same time-frame, which makes me wonder if the tale was for recruitment purposes.

As to the question of whether dragons are real or not, I would have to say yes -- but not necessarily in this dimension.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Dragons may have been very real indeed take for instance the Megalania ,(giant ripper lizard) of Australia. Body length 5.5 meters wieght 400kg This giant lizard lived along side humans in australia.I would consider this monster of a lizard a dragon if I ever came across one

can u get a link for this for me shadow m8...very interesting

there is a Wiccian book on Dragons. i bought a copy their real.

Originally posted by DRAGON27
there is a Wiccian book on Dragons. i bought a copy their real.

There's a lot of stuff in wiccan books...

thanks william m8...can understand where some of these tales come from when u think about these first encounters with some of these animals

Do you have any site references for these "sightings" of dragons?

Originally posted by Ðany
Hmm.
I think they at least, 'were' real.
But I think that the Earth was a different place a long, long time ago.

do you know how different? ever heard of Pangea? thats what earth was billions of years ago. it was just one giant land mass. but with earthquakes and that comet that killed the dinosaurs and other things caused it to break apart. ever noticed how continents that are seperated by just an ocean fit together like a puzzle? well they were once together on pangea. again, all from 6th grade science.