Were Dragons Real?

[Mirabilis]

So, I recorded the animal Planet special "Dragons: a Fantasy Made Real" about 3-4 years ago. I just started getting interested in it again, and watched the recorded film. They say that they have two real bodies, and have been studying them since that time. But, I know some people that say that it is a "what If" show, and just a hoax. But I've done research on this matter, and watched cast documentaries, in which they clearly say they have the bodies. "The Creature you thought could never have existed, actually has existed." I've seen photos of how they're suppose to be displayed in some museum, and how this would effect scientific history. Further more, i've read that when the discovery was being claimed, Dr. Tanner said he would go investigate, but if it was a hoax he would leave immediately, but if its if interest he would stay.

Still some people say this whole ordeal is a hoax, but I think the story of the dragon animal planet made is a fake, but the bodies themselves are real.

[Guest IC Ominae]

This depends a lot upon what one is defining as a dragon. Flying Reptiles are established, but that's a different proposition from Tolkien or those who followed up on Tolkien. Gorillas took a while to actually find so it's not like we know all the creatures that may exist.

[Mirabilis]

Well, they said they found two bodies. One of an adult female and one of a adolecent female. They said they were completely intact and pefectly perserved. They physically have the body of what was known as a "dragon". and where found deep in the Carpathian Mt.'s of Romania, when skeirs located the cave. here are my sources of information.

http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/dragons.html

http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/

This next one has the photos of the creature unthawed and how they want to display the remains at the museum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons:_A_Fantasy_Made_Real

Edited May 15, 2009 by Mirabilis

[*Jess♥]

it's obvious to me on the very first look, that is a fantasy, what-if scenario.

this is not based on any real creature.

it says quite clearly "fantasy made real" . it doesn't say, fatasy has turned out to be reality, they said MADE real.

in other words, they made it.

but if you want discussion on wether or not dragons could be real... it depends.

I say yes.

because i believe that many things are possible outside humanity's little 'bubble' of 'accepted fact'.

if you want to ask, within the chronicles of accepted genetics and physics etc, no a dragon is not really a likely outcome of any evolutionary chain.

I believe a dragon is real because it exists inside the mind of mankind. think of the film, the neverewnding story. mans imagination ives rise to a real world that is in a sort of other dimension.

anything you can dream up in your mind, actually exists. you just can't physically go there with this body.

that's my view on it.

there are other concepts and views. one way to view it is that dragons are spirits of the mountains. they guard the treasure (naturally occuring minerals) under the mountain and are the cause of cave-ins etc.

another way to view it is that dragons are actually silicon based lifeforms living within the magma inside the earth.

[LordSpleach]

I think the closest this planet has come to dragons is the dinosaurs. Hopefully, Komodo Dragons won't evolve wings.

Edited May 15, 2009 by LordSpleach

[Mirabilis]

hhmmmm...

Ryuki, I took it that "Fantasy made real" was saying that the fatansy was true. I guess you cant beleive everything you hear? I dont know, I can honestly say though that I thought as far as the body and scientific experiments, I thought were real. But the animated story itself, I knew was fake. But thats a pretty neat view on this matter Ryuki. I think they're was some kind of creature that live alongside man that could fly and somehow breath fire that was labeled a dragon. I dont think someone just came up with the idea and it became a religious deal sort of thing. Perhaps overexariation?

[Tales]

If Dragons were to be real, most likely they would not be fire breathing. I think anatomically they are already equipped with the equipment; claws & teeth body form, they are good enough to predate on animal.

[Guest IC Ominae]

I really doubt their examples would be able to fly due too much to the mass to wing ratio. They also have the problem that they're using a six limb design. Insects can get away with that due to their smaller scale. For something our size setting up the musculature to support all that seems kind of dubious.

[Mirabilis]

Ah, but they said in the film that the bones were honeycombed like that of a bird, and that they had two hyrdogen muscles that would fill up with air and give them lift like the hot air balloon affect. Further more, they said that with the hyrdogen they already have stored in their bodies, and with certain minerials that they are attracted to and eat, dragons could both fly and breath fire by combineing the minerial with the hydrogen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13E0mMMC_-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylT0mJ0Py58

[*Jess♥]

Further more, they said that with the hyrdogen they already have stored in their bodies, and with certain minerials that they are attracted to and eat, dragons could both fly and breath fire by combineing the minerial with the hydrogen.

if you haven't already, you should watch an animated film called 'flight of dragons'.

it's based on a book of the same name that explores those very themes. but the film is much more fun!

if such a thing existed, I think that would have to disprove evolution theory. that kind of wild setup just couldn't happen by accident.

[Mirabilis]

Yeah I know what you mean. This film talks about alot of things that would need to be present in the dragons body in order for all these legends to be able to happen. Breathing Fire, flight, the back palate. Thats one complex system man!

[Guest IC Ominae]

Ah, but they said in the film that the bones were honeycombed like that of a bird, and that they had two hyrdogen muscles that would fill up with air and give them lift like the hot air balloon affect. Further more, they said that with the hyrdogen they already have stored in their bodies, and with certain minerials that they are attracted to and eat, dragons could both fly and breath fire by combineing the minerial with the hydrogen.

I'm sorry I can't resist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE9UpU8PDIE

if such a thing existed, I think that would have to disprove evolution theory.

Darwin never proved it, or for that matter had any training or otherwise in Applied Science. Not to mention the Soviets were so paranoid about basic genetics utterly debunking it that for a good while basic genetics was banned from their schools. Even Douglas Adams took a swipe at it with the whole Babelfish speel.

When you start getting into all the systems and chemical interactions in play you run into the irreducibly complex problem. Basic biological functions make even the most complex engineered systems look like toys and the result of the gene mapping established as indisputable fact that that there weren't enough of them for the previous excuse of them being simple switches. So evolution is the equivalent of the old monkeys on type writers coming up the full Microsoft Windows source code, for all versions, in order, treated as perfectly legit with a straight face.

Nevermind the handedness problem of the one experiment that generated Amino acids. The chemistry experiment naturally had equal amounts of left and right handed amino acids, but lifeforms are composed exclusively of one type.

Evolution is a dead man walking. If you already believe in such astronomically improbable occurrences just happening, what's a dragon? They've played with Fruit Flies, which have a 2-week lifespan, using radiation to encourage mutation since about 1926 there results simply confirm basic genetics. There is literally nothing to support them but fanatical insistence.

They're philosophers masquerading as scientists. They cozy up to politicians, rationalize what's advantageous to them, and don't care about what's really going on. Problem is that pretty much guarantees they get money to secure the political figure's power. In this case rationalization material for almost all the atrocities committed in the 20th century can be directly tracked back to Mr. Darwin through intermediaries he inspired like Marx and Hitler.

Edited May 17, 2009 by IC Ominae

[*Jess♥]

wow, what a diverse view.

well you have many many people who will standby evolution as a firm belief.

I was just noting that such a fantastic creature would have them really struggling.

as for what you said about the complexities.. well I can't say i understand it all. perhaps i can read more about what you wrote when i have more of an opportuity.

[The Luna Diviner]

i definetly think dragons were real at one time. however that doesnt mean its exactly like the media nowadays depicts it.

think about nessie for a moment. we dont know if its real or not, we only have sightings and deticated science to go off. however, people all around the world report plessiosaurs (excuse my spelling) in bodies of water, nessie in scotlands, champ in lake champlain, the monster of monterey in California. its everywhere. one side says it would be hard to make that up, another says its just people trying to make a name by making something up.

however, there are many differant types of dragons if you believe present day books and media. things such as water dragons, land dragons, cave dragons, who would survive in differant habitats much like a snow leopard or jaguar. theres also American dragons, chinese dragons, brittish dragons. ive seen pictures and read stories about supposid cases of all of theses. that would truly be hard to make up, and if it was a fabrication or simply a lie, its a very grand scale one.

my viewpoint currently stands as such: theres two sides of me, one that thinks logically, and understands what others were saying about evolution and such. and another side that wants to believe that the world still escapes mans understanding, or that dragons did at one time exist. theres no science to prove that, but that doesnt mean its not true.

[*YoungGuyver]

Darwin never proved it, or for that matter had any training or otherwise in Applied Science. Not to mention the Soviets were so paranoid about basic genetics utterly debunking it that for a good while basic genetics was banned from their schools. Even Douglas Adams took a swipe at it with the whole Babelfish speel.

Oh come on, it's been over a hundred years since Darwin! Are we stuck in 1850 looking for evidence? There has been tons of evidence since.

When you start getting into all the systems and chemical interactions in play you run into the irreducibly complex problem.

Complex yes, but not irreducible. Look at the genetic code, and you can start to spot the mutations. For instance, the wings of a bird are virtually the same as the gills of a fish. The bible was poetically right when it says that birds came from the oceans. Genes can double, creating a useless set, until that set takes on a whole new role. Eyes are reducible (a better example), as we have photo sensitive single celled creatures. And yet, the MODERN version of the eye is very complex, with many components.

Nevermind the handedness problem of the one experiment that generated Amino acids. The chemistry experiment naturally had equal amounts of left and right handed amino acids, but lifeforms are composed exclusively of one type.

One of the tenets of evolution is that CHANGE occurs in order to manipulate life. Which leaves us with many questions, such as what changes have occurred? What were the exact conditions when life first formed? What was the first life like? Let's keep researching, things could get interesting.

They've played with Fruit Flies, which have a 2-week lifespan, using radiation to encourage mutation since about 1926 there results simply confirm basic genetics. There is literally nothing to support them but fanatical insistence.

And since 1926, we have so much more evidence on how mutations DO occur, and how new species develop. Some mutations within human genes that are currently considered 'diseases' may actually be the beginnings of new species, considered a sickness simply because it is different. Asperger's may be a very good example of this.

They're philosophers masquerading as scientists. They cozy up to politicians, rationalize what's advantageous to them, and don't care about what's really going on. Problem is that pretty much guarantees they get money to secure the political figure's power. In this case rationalization material for almost all the atrocities committed in the 20th century can be directly tracked back to Mr. Darwin through intermediaries he inspired like Marx and Hitler.

I'm sorry, but how does a scientist guarantee a politicians power? That doesn't make much sense to me.

The science of this on the other hand DOES offer benefits, such as showing us how to better manage our fisheries (Taking only the big fish results in fish evolving to be smaller-suggesting that we should vary our fishing habits. Also, having a varied gene pool makes it harder for virus to destroy an ecosystem, suggesting we should have variety in our gardens in order to get better yields). Though if you want to talk about morally questionable geneticists gleaning up to politicians, then perhaps you might be interested in looking up some of the major chemical companies, and how Bill Clinton appointed one of their vice presidents to the head of the genetically modified foods division of the FDA, which ends up approving GMO's by default. I'll side with you on that due to it's unscientific and amoral basis.

In this case rationalization material for almost all the atrocities committed in the 20th century can be directly tracked back to Mr. Darwin through intermediaries he inspired like Marx and Hitler.

Just as the bible itself has been used as rationalization material for countless atrocities. People that wish to do horrible things will find both truth and lie alike in order to justify it. We could even say slavery is alright, because the bible dictates the rules for treating your slaves. Does that make slavery morally right?

[Salkafar]

The Wikipedia page on the subject of this special dryly remarks that the amount of lift 30 cubic foot of hydrogen provides is about 2 pounds.

Also, I would like to remark that the idea for this special was used in a much older book on dragons.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/d/peter-...-of-dragons.htm

That was an interesting read to be sure: it shed light on the biological dragon in the light of the legends surrounding it.

For instance, legend often has that a dragon is invulnerable except for one spot... but the book argues that it is the other way around: a dragon is actually eminently vulnerable except for the bony, spiky `mask´ that covers its face and which it actively uses as shield and weapon.

The hydrogen idea was simpler: almost the entire body, which was elongated and bulbous, consisted of hydrogen chambers. Hydrogen was generated by dissolving rapidly growing, honeycomb-like bone in hydrochloric stomach acid.

Dragons breathed fire because they had to, because they produced hydrogen all the time and would burst if they did not release gas regularly.

The wings were modified ribs rather than limbs; the body was, as said, mostly hydrogen chambers which, if I understand it correctly, were actually heavily modified vertebrae.

It even explained the traditionally noxious environment around a dragon as a consequence of the expulsion of the acid needed to produce hydrogen.

In any case, the entire dragon thing was a result of modifications necessary for flight, made by a therapod.

***

I see the `Intelligent Design´ movement once again wants to suggest that evolution is a theory in crisis.

As if repeating something often enough will make it come true.

[Guest IC Ominae]

Oh come on, it's been over a hundred years since Darwin! Are we stuck in 1850 looking for evidence? There has been tons of evidence since.

I note assertion, and nothing backing it up. Yes they've tinkered with fruit flies for a hundred years and most of it with radiation to try to get Genetics to break in the way Darwinism requires. Their result was Genetics has no confirmed exception, which Darwinism requires. As I said there is a reason the Soviets banned biology topics including Genetics.

The reason they never talk about evidence is frankly because they don't have anything that would stand up to critical review. That qualifies as blind faith by any standard, and that is in pure defiance of everything related to Science. I will defend this from the perspective of defending the core principles of Science against those who seek to usurp them for political purposes.

Complex yes, but not irreducible. Look at the genetic code, and you can start to spot the mutations. For instance, the wings of a bird are virtually the same as the gills of a fish. The bible was poetically right when it says that birds came from the oceans. Genes can double, creating a useless set, until that set takes on a whole new role. Eyes are reducible (a better example), as we have photo sensitive single celled creatures. And yet, the MODERN version of the eye is very complex, with many components.

In terms of chemistry it has been confirmed those aren't even vaguely similar, but let's humor that ignorant 19th century style argument to avoid things becoming overly technical.

Muscle tissue seems like a good basis for a simple and intuitive example. Now as you probably don't know unless you've looked into it a basic muscle fiber is this arrangement that involves what is basically a fiber and a sheath. The sheath pulls the fiber into itself, and thus you compress the overall arrangement while keeping fibers in tension. Now as you should you need a opposing muscle group to pull this muscle group apart and make it more then the archetypal elevator that only goes up. Now for the kicker, justify how you get a complex arrangement like human musculature with monkeys on typewriters coding it.

There's clearer stuff but it's a little to technical for this type of place.

One of the tenets of evolution is that CHANGE occurs in order to manipulate life.

Adaptation is not Darwinism. Evolution effectively assert there is an exception to genetics that allows the chemical hard code to be modified resulting in significant changes. There is no evidence of this as opposed to adaptation which the desperate claim as "evidence."

The last hold out for this was when they did the gene maps, which simply catologued the number of actual genes. Function is still not really understood despite some people's interpretation of what gene mapping means. The problem was there were not enough for the simple view. It's not like activating a program somebody else already prepared, but instead more like coding in Assembly. Hence the concept is now actually on the level with Microsoft firing their entire programming department for monkey on type writers to code Windows with a straight face is more legit.

And since 1926, we have so much more evidence on how mutations DO occur, and how new species develop. Some mutations within human genes that are currently considered 'diseases' may actually be the beginnings of new species, considered a sickness simply because it is different. Asperger's may be a very good example of this.

I would ask you to hold your ignorant tongue about Autism. There are enough misconceptions Neurological Typicals insist on without dragging this into it, and almost all border on vicious racism in all but name. Let it lie at the fact everyone by now should recognize the lack of functionality in Autistics hit to fast and in to great of numbers for the Autistics to be a "mutation" or other such uninformed assertions. You want to talk to me about Autism start a new thread, and drop the misconceptions that Autistics are some kind of retard. That's just one step away from the Cure-bees that want to exterminate Autistics in all but name.

Mutations have been always been shown to be harmful. Furthermore they actually succeeded in getting a fly without eyes in their century of fruit fly experiments, noteworthy was the fact in a few generations things returned to the mean as with all such experiments to date. Genetics has been verified under the most extreme conditions with these experiments, but the exception required for Darwinism is not in evidence.

I'm sorry, but how does a scientist guarantee a politicians power? That doesn't make much sense to me.

You have to ask? You seem to know enough, given what follows this question.

The science of this on the other hand DOES offer benefits

Calling Darwinism Science is an insult to all real scientists including Newton if that's what your implying. Real science involves a lot of hard work to understand things, not empty gestures some find politically convenient.

Just as the bible itself has been used as rationalization material for countless atrocities.

You know I could ask when your thinking and we could have a historical debate, but that probably wouldn't be productive. So let's cut straight to the point. There is a difference between a establishment justifying things, sound bites taken out of context, and being completely in line with concept in line with the theory.

Darwinism asserts life as random chance and puts no intrinsic value on it as with something classified as God's creation particularly in regards to requirements laid out by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and Leviticus Chapter 19. Darwinism asserts the goal is to eliminate the less qualified, which will naturally be perceived as others. The Bible quite clearly assert these are to be taken care of and helped. Darwin also literally inspires the people who have committed the atrocities, directly or through intermediary, which cannot even vaguely be asserted of the Bible. So that's a very weak form of what's not exactly a mature argument to begin with.

Seems as how you singled out slavery, let's talk about slavery. Now what Jewish law actually specs out is more like an indentured servant, then anything you can call a slave. Which is why the anti-slavery biblical scholars utterly smacked the pro-slavery ones historically. In ancient Isreal they could only be held for a few years maximum as dictated by this ceremony that occurred on a regular scheduled basis. The entire US military would basically have to be classified as slaves for their "slaves to be termed such, which was quite unusual.

Heck the Code of Hammarabi has a line that says if a barmaid overcharges a patron her life is forfeit. Peasants, under any name, are more accurately slaves in the way you mean then Isreal's "slaves" were.

[Salkafar]

KC, you stagger me.

Thank you for reinvigorating my fire. I see that there really IS a struggle after all.

I´ll defer any argument I could make to the following: How come there are so very few biologists who agree with your point of view?