Dragons vs Dinosaurs

[miguk miguk]

Dragons of course.
That said i do need to point something out, one thing that's always bothers me is the idea that we'd actually find dragon fossils and thus they are a myth, two things we know from legends is that first, dragons weren't viewed as mythical, but as actual threats at one time, so they likely did exist in some form and went extinct, second is that dragon's bones, blood, meat etc were said to be magical in nature, whether this is true or not is irrelevant, there would likely be no corpses of the creature left as they'd be used for things like medicines and artifacts.

For this reason i believe dragons likely did exist at one time, and were hunted to extinction due to how valuable their corpses were at the time.
One thing to remember is that most dragon stories died out around the time of the invention of the cannon.

People found the bones of extinct animals and even living animals they were not familiar with back in the day. Without science to help them, they just made up stories about what these creatures were.

No dragon fossil was ever found. Dinosaur fossils, elephant skulls, and other animal remains could be found and then misconstrued for something fantastical.

The claims about their parts is just typical mythology. There's no reason to believe that they had any connection to real medicine, especially because medicine didn't exist at that time. (What they had was herbalism, which is not a scientific field.)

The cannon claim is correlation without causation. You don't even have a follow up to explain what you are getting at.

You are making extraordinary claims without any evidence to back them up. As a result, this reads like short fiction rather than any actual statement of fact.

 

[Leon]

People found the bones of extinct animals and even living animals they were not familiar with back in the day. Without science to help them, they just made up stories about what these creatures were.

No dragon fossil was ever found. Dinosaur fossils, elephant skulls, and other animal remains could be found and then misconstrued for something fantastical.

The claims about their parts is just typical mythology. There's no reason to believe that they had any connection to real medicine, especially because medicine didn't exist at that time. (What they had was herbalism, which is not a scientific field.)

The cannon claim is correlation without causation. You don't even have a follow up to explain what you are getting at.

You are making extraordinary claims without any evidence to back them up. As a result, this reads like short fiction rather than any actual statement of fact.

Your also working off the assumption that our ancestors were idiots.
We had people going back to babylonian times that spoke of a time of fossils of giant beasts, which likely referred to dinosaurs, those same people claimed that dragons existed and were a very real threat.

Keep in mind i never said it was the modern, D&D depiction of dragons either, dragons almost never had wings historically in the legends and couldn't fly, most of the legends of dragons from western (as in europe and the americas) suspiciously share similarities with megalania aka the komodo dragon's MUCH bigger brother that went extinct around 50k years ago or crocadilians, i don't think it's hard to imagine that there have been a few unidentified species of large monitor lizard or crocadilian species that went extinct fairly recently, we literally find hundreds of existent species yearly.

As for lung dragons aka asian dragons, that's far more easier to explain as there are some sea creatures that bear similarities to lung dragons from legend, though i doubt any of them could fly.

 

[miguk miguk]

Your also working off the assumption that our ancestors were idiots.
We had people going back to babylonian times that spoke of a time of fossils of giant beasts, which likely referred to dinosaurs, those same people claimed that dragons existed and were a very real threat.

Keep in mind i never said it was the modern, D&D depiction of dragons either, dragons almost never had wings historically in the legends and couldn't fly, most of the legends of dragons from western (as in europe and the americas) suspiciously share similarities with megalania aka the komodo dragon's MUCH bigger brother that went extinct around 50k years ago or crocadilians, i don't think it's hard to imagine that there have been a few unidentified species of large monitor lizard or crocadilian species that went extinct fairly recently, we literally find hundreds of existent species yearly.

As for lung dragons aka asian dragons, that's far more easier to explain as there are some sea creatures that bear similarities to lung dragons from legend, though i doubt any of them could fly.

I said nothing about anyone being idiots. The scientific method is an invention from the 19th century; that's a fact that is well recorded. Previous eras had some form of empiricism, but did not have them developed enough to weed out pseudoscience. It was a lack of proper methodology, not intelligence, that caused them to get many things wrong.

Isaac Newton thought that alchemy was real; the fact that he had legit ideas that contributed to science does not make alchemy real. Same goes for people finding dinosaur fossils while making claims about dragons.

Saying "i don't think it's hard to imagine" only hurts your argument, as you only further push the idea of your argument being imaginary. And I'm not going to do that based on baseless claims.

Lizards and other reptiles are not dragons. Ancient people knew the difference because they had reptiles to observe.

And yes, dragons are in a lot of mythologies. So are gods and flying people and giants and wee people and furry humanoids. That seems to be moreso about commonalities in human imagination and cultural ideas than about anything we actually found in real life.

Again, you give no real evidence for your claims and are only proving your point incorrect. If you are going to make extraordinary claims, then cite your sources. Nobody is required to believe you without outside evidence to support your claims.