Now you understand why the topic is in pseudo science. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
I don't. It's one of the most unrational beliefs, but alas very human, because humans apply their way of things to the whole universe. For example (if we apply your logic): I have a really deep feeling that you are dumb. Am I right? I can be right, but it's very likely I can be wrong too. Feelings are no way towards truth. I want to make a point that feelings are not the right way for a scientificaly viable research. Feelings are no proof, they are a highly subjective (or should I say "biassed") oppinion of a brain of a bipedal primate that not so long ago could not even count to ten.
Well, I must immediately leave this thread for fear of temptation. What temptation, you ask? Why, whatever all the "dragons did exist!" people are smoking, of course! It's obviously good stuff if it messes with the brain processes to that degree. I mean listen to some of these people. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sure, they have sightings and reports listed... even some of spurious and extinct creatures. But I saw no evidence for "dragons." Indeed, if there were any real evidence for "dragons" of mythology, then they wouldn't be mythological. They would be paleological. There is a difference between dinasaurs of millions of years before hominids and the mythological creatures that H. sapiens have been recording for the past few thousands of years. By simply looking at mythology as a subject and not limiting yourself to one, very small, slice of human mythos, you would note that, througout history, man has created all manner of mythical beasts. That the "dragon" finds itself in several cultures really isn't surprising since in nearly each there are places to find fossil remains of prehistoric creatures from dinasaurs to giraffes. Add to this the almost universal identification of serpent figures with the underworld or the sinister, sprinkle with a moderate dose imagination and a desire to astound and astonish others with a good tale, and it's easy to see how these legends are created. But in this modern age, it is irrational to believe that the dragon, as represented in either Western or Eastern motifs was an actual creature, particularly the winged serpent-monster that can take flight and even breath fire. As to your anecdotal "evidence" of anecdotal accounts in Australia, I think you need to visit the Embellishments of memory: the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony and consider the true validity of someone visiting the Outback and recounting their tales of "giant lizards." Like the fish stories of my uncle, the creatures they saw undoubtedly grew in size with each re-telling of the story. Your belief itself is fascinating, however. Tell us, are there other irrational or legendary things that captivate your belief in spite of complete lack of actual evidence to support their existance? Do you, for instance, believe that Minotaurs or Centaurs once roamed the highlands of Greece or Anatolia or in Mesopotamia? Do you believe that Leprechauns dwell in rural Ireland? Or that Quetzalcoatl was a feathered serpent in Mexico until around 200 CE that ruled Teotihuacan when he wasn't "flying around?" Do you believe that lion-headed Griffons guarded the gold in the Scythian mountains in the 1st millenium BCE because Pliny the Elder wrote of them in his Natural History and Aeschylus wrote of them in Prometheus Bound? I'm just curious where you draw the limits on your beliefs. But a little more about the legend of Griffons: In Prometheus Bound, Aeschylus (ca 430 B.C.E.) described Scythian griffins as "sharp beaked" "dogs of Zeus that ne'er give tongue." Herodotus (440 B.C.E.) commented in his Histories about the prospecting of gold in the northern parts of Europe, by declaring that he "cannot say for sure how the gold is obtained there," but that " the one-eyed Arimaspi purloin it from the griffins." Aeschylus doubted the story, however, and based his doubt not on the fantastic idea of winged creatures with lion bodies and bird heads, but that a race of men with only one eye could exist. In his Natural History (77 C.E.), Pliny the Elder, citing other authorities, said that griffins guarded gold in Scythia with ferocity. It is no coincidence that the mountains in which many bronze and iron age peoples sought gold, copper and tin were home to many fossil remains of giant beasts (dinosaurs, giraffes, elephants, etc.) that periodically wash out of cliff faces and hillsides.
i will believe what i want. i will believe it to the death. i will defend its existence, with violence, until death, unless it is proven nonexistant. i know, i know, "the burden is on you" is it on me, or is it you? where is your proof, skeptic?
I am telling you i am a dragon. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!...oh,man Skeptics!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu "If I say that my somewhat extravagant imagination yielded simultaneous pictures of an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature, I shall not be unfaithful to the spirit of the thing. A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque and scaly body with rudimentary wings... It represented a monster of vaguely anthropoid outline, but with an octopus-like head whose face was a mass of feelers, a scaly, rubbery-looking body, prodigious claws on hind and fore feet, and long, narrow wings behind. This thing, which seemed instinct with a fearsome and unnatural malignancy, was of a somewhat bloated corpulence..." — H.P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Anyway, this thread has nothing to do with komodo dragon. They are lizards not dragons. This thread is about dragons not lizards.
dragons, lizards, whatever. i wasnt refferring to the komodo drag. as a Drake. i was referring to the Megalania of Australia.
who cares about fire and wings? thats not what i think about when i hear "dragon" when i hear "dragon" i usually think something more like the Asian dragons, which are a lot more like giant monitors or pythons than anything else. dunno what comes to your mind when you here "dragon", but i think "giant serpent"
Serpent \Ser"pent\, n. [F., fr. L. serpens, -entis (sc. bestia), fr. serpens, p. pr. of serpere to creep; akin to Gr. ???, Skr. sarp, and perhaps to L. repere, E. reptile. Cf. Herpes.] 1. (Zo["o]l.) Any reptile of the order Ophidia; a snake, especially a large snake. See Illust. under Ophidia. Note: The serpents are mostly long and slender, and move partly by bending the body into undulations or folds and pressing them against objects, and partly by using the free edges of their ventral scales to cling to rough surfaces. Many species glide swiftly over the ground, some burrow in the earth, others live in trees. A few are entirely aquatic, and swim rapidly. See Ophidia, and Fang. ------- Does not sound like Megalania prisca to me. :m: Peace.
Monitors and lizards are regular animals. Dragons in whatever form (whether they fly, breath fire, or whatever) are what is being discussed. What is your problem?
My problem is my definition of dragon is different than yours. My definition: Any lizard or snake larger than 35 feet long and weighing at least one ton. Yours: a reptile that can fly and breathe fire.
