MagiStream

I defenatly think that some of the creaters that we say don't exist do...Because one time most of the animals we see today were once to other people "myth". For example the Pladipus. When the First discory of this creature Became known,of a creater with a duck bill, Beaver tail, webed paws and a Mamales body, they all thought that they were crazy and were sent to a phyc ward to get mental help. But when they killed one of the creatures was killed and Brought back for dicection, they thought that the people who killed the animal sew it together as a joke and when farther exsamined they found no seems or stiches. it wasn't until they acctully had brought a live one back that they really believed them. So In My threoy "mythical" animals are just ones yet to be decovered. And one day we will decover them and they will be fact instead of myth or legand.

I think that dragons are, or were, a relative of dinosaurs and either have:

A) Still hidden on this Earth somewhere, and living
B) Become extinct around the same time as dinosaurs
C) Gone to another planet
D) Somehow been preserved, and can become actively living at any time
E) Evolved into other species, originals dying out.*

*See Theory B.

HobbitFeet wrote:I'd also like to point out, and this'll probably be a tl:dr post for me, that there is a sort of Peter Pan complex on this argument. I had known several women who believed completely that they had fairies living in their backyard, and several small dragons milling about their house. They were otherwise sane women. A male friend tried to explain their reasoning to an open minded girl who was sitting in on the conversation, while I just listened. If you believe in something hard enough, that belief can be true for you alone. While it is "nutters" to the rest of us, you could have fairies floating around your head. Does it mean you can prove this? Nope. But that won't deter you from believing in it, and it is therefore completely real to you.

Or there are some people whose brains have access to another universe, which is technically the same as ours only not ours, and only people who have done the most similar actions as the creatures living in the same place where they live, only in different universes, can gain access to their parallel counterparts.

Also, a lot of religions believe in things that are just as strange as zoocryptids, but don't think they are ridiculous.

missawesome7337 wrote: However, I do take it with a grain of salt. Some of these things that seem to be natural, dragons in this argument, are quite simply impossible in our natural world. If you look at the muscle structure of a lizard, there's nowhere you could fit in the necessary muscles for flight. Quite simply, they can't have wings. So either we imagine dragons wrong, or the bat-wing-lizards we see when we hear any draconian term are impossible.

ok, here I go again, about to sound like a nutjob, but this one bit made me twitch. dragons, were they real, would be about as close to reptile as dinosaurs. (note: dinosaurs are not reptiles, common misconception) therefore, while looking vaguely reptilian thanks to the common idea of scales, the would have a separate muscle structure. "dragons" do not encompass a species, the term is considered by the more "scientific" mythologists as a class, much like reptiles or felines. (assuming you can call mythology a science, which I suppose they do, since it ends in "ology") actually, possibly mammals with felines being a family, I can't remember. ok, done geeking out now.

NOTE: I do believe in the possibility of dragons, if not now, then sometime in the past, having found logical explanations for the anatomy, I don't see any reason they couldn't exist. (that is assuming they don't really breath fire, since I haven't figured out how that'd be possible yet, though I'm working on a theory)

Nightshayde wrote:

nanotyranus wrote:B. Most things biomechanically impossible.

I hate when people do that, say that something so simple is impossible. Alot of things were thought impossible but just look at us now. Like somebody above said we are a young species so really there is alot we do not know. They aren't biochemically impossible, or impossible in any way. Sure they might not exist but they are not impossible. I guess this is your opiion though.

I'm not saying all things are impossible, just a couple of the stranger ones, or when we take stuff at face value. I think that dragons as they are aren't quite workable, but a large-winged wyvern, a gliding animal with muscles that lock the wings out, or maybe some sort of double-batwinged... thing would be fine. A dragon as we picture it doesn't have enough space on its chest for a good flying system to be attached, unless there was some sort of crest, and double-limbs would be fairly hard to evolve, unless one pair doesn't exist or isn't actually a limb (like the wings being rib extentions or something).

nanotyranus wrote:

Nightshayde wrote:

nanotyranus wrote:B. Most things biomechanically impossible.

I hate when people do that, say that something so simple is impossible. Alot of things were thought impossible but just look at us now. Like somebody above said we are a young species so really there is alot we do not know. They aren't biochemically impossible, or impossible in any way. Sure they might not exist but they are not impossible. I guess this is your opiion though.

I'm not saying all things are impossible, just a couple of the stranger ones, or when we take stuff at face value. I think that dragons as they are aren't quite workable, but a large-winged wyvern, a gliding animal with muscles that lock the wings out, or maybe some sort of double-batwinged... thing would be fine. A dragon as we picture it doesn't have enough space on its chest for a good flying system to be attached, unless there was some sort of crest, and double-limbs would be fairly hard to evolve, unless one pair doesn't exist or isn't actually a limb (like the wings being rib extentions or something).

well that also depends on how you picture dragons.

chimerakid111 wrote:Or there are some people whose brains have access to another universe, which is technically the same as ours only not ours, and only people who have done the most similar actions as the creatures living in the same place where they live, only in different universes, can gain access to their parallel counterparts.

Also, a lot of religions believe in things that are just as strange as zoocryptids, but don't think they are ridiculous.

That is, if there even are such things as other universes, much less universes with creatures like these. Since these are theories that cannot be proven, at least not with our current scope of research and technology, then a theory it remains. While it may be a possibility, the logical explanation would point to either a mental disturbance for believing that they are able to see these things repeatedly and consistently, or that they're simply saying it for attention. Because these things can't be tested as they are, I remain skeptical.

I'm not even going near the religious argument. I couldn't without coming across as rude, so I'm just going to leave it be...

CasinWolfe wrote:ok, here I go again, about to sound like a nutjob, but this one bit made me twitch. dragons, were they real, would be about as close to reptile as dinosaurs. (note: dinosaurs are not reptiles, common misconception) therefore, while looking vaguely reptilian thanks to the common idea of scales, the would have a separate muscle structure. "dragons" do not encompass a species, the term is considered by the more "scientific" mythologists as a class, much like reptiles or felines. (assuming you can call mythology a science, which I suppose they do, since it ends in "ology") actually, possibly mammals with felines being a family, I can't remember. ok, done geeking out now.

I never said they were reptiles. I just pointed out that most common (read: Western) dragons look like lizards with bat wings. It can be assumed that, since they have a body similar to a lizard, they would have a musculature similar to a lizard, or at least a brontosaurus. From what I know, there would be no way to fit wings into the musculature.
Musculature has nothing to do with species, it has to do with body shape. In the body shape of a common dragon image (horselike with a long neck and tail) there is quite simply no place for the muscles to control the wings. These muscles would need to be massive in order to create the uplift to move the entire weight of the animal, and the only way they could exist was if they didn't have front legs, thus replacing the leg muscles in the shoulder with wing muscles. Now, if you assume that dragons are not necessarily reptiles, nor even reptilian, and ignore the fire-breathing bit, then, yes, they have existed. Using the term loosely, pterodactyls could be considered dragons.
Fire-breathing is possible, as long as the dragons aren't creating the fire within themselves. Unless they could somehow combust internally without dying, then it's impossible that way. However, they could do something like the fire-breathers at circuses, where they briefly swallow the fire and breathe it back out.
\
I'm pretty sure I've digressed completely from your point, but that's my piece.

missawesome7337 wrote:However, they could do something like the fire-breathers at circuses, where they briefly swallow the fire and breathe it back out.

Fire breathers don't swallow flames-- they hold some kind of alcohol in their mouth and spit it out into the torch at a speed that's too fast for the flames to run back along it and set them on fire. Some will put out fires in their mouths, but they can't physically swallow it-- there's not enough air for it to survive in a mouth.

But besides that point, a six-limbed dragon is pretty much an impossibility-- even the largest flying creatures in our history(Quetzalcoatlus, for example) were extremely awkward and likely very slow moving while on the ground, and probably incapable of any strong takeoffs.

Just to add to the dragon thing here, the physiology of dragon is not very realistic, as they are described to be intelligent animals. Often they are portrayed with serpentine shaped heads with a long neck. As know through our friends the dinosaurs, sauropods are a great example. Long, long neck, tiny head and tiny brain. You can't have a thirty foot long neck and have a massive head big, you couldn't hold it up and end up breaking your neck. The size of dragons is also a problem, the proportions with the head compared to its size just doesn't fit. To actually be able to posses a sentient form of intelligence the neck would be short and stocky. Not to mention they're also described to have horns on their head, that would just weigh down the head.
Basically, a flat head lacking horns would make it aerodynamically fit to fly. Similar to fish, they are very thin when looking directly at them, sideways they look wide, which allows them move side to side through the water. Whales are more flat from above and below, which makes it better to move up and down. If you ever stick your hand outside a window, next time move it side to side and up and down. You can feel the resistance and lack of drag from different angles. So, your dragon would have to small, barely have any neck, and possibly even be designed like a fish in order to gain flight.
Or, if you want a stupid dragon, which can retain all of the generic traits seen from lore, it would just be as dumb as a brick.
Also about oh how dragons 'disappeared', not to be rude, but how would they go to a different planet? If they used spaceships, there would at least be some traces of a their civilization left on Earth.

I'm not saying its impossible, but just trying to be realistic and I am quite skeptical of this topic.

i don think that dragons could actually exist, because a gigantic fire-spitting reptile that can somehow lift itself off of the ground with bat-like wings despite its huge body sounds completely unrealistic to me. Instead, I have a better explanation for what people have been mistaking as dragons.

Sir Richard Owen found Dinosaur bones in the 1800s, but I find it unlikely that he was the first one to discover a Dinosaur skeleton. In the middle ages, I am sure people dug into the ground, either for building castles, wells, or anything else. What if they found dinosaur fossils, and were not able to reconstruct the skeletons correctly? They might have thought these beasts had wings, especially, if they found pterodactyl fossils. Before long, it would not be hard to keep the whole village from hearing about a massive beast that flew in the air and breathed flame. Legends passed on, and on, and on, and they are still here today, but changed a bit.

And Bigfoot? I believe there is an ape species living in the secluded parts of the world. After watching the famous clip of Bigfoot walking through the woods, and watching a bunch of films about it, I learned several things. The first was that no human could recreate his gait as seen in the video. Second, the creature was displaying a common facial expression among gorillas and chimpanzees, curling its upper lip slightly to show anger or aggression, which could only be revealed upon zooming in on the video clip. Why and how would somebody make a fake clip like that?

And as for the Loch Ness Monster - yes, I do believe there are plesiosaurs out there. They were thought to be extinct for millions of years, but so were coelocanths, and they were discovered alive. And while that famous black-and-white photo taken in the loch may not be real, i think that Nessie is.

Then trolls... Like I said before, I believe there are still undiscovered ape species in existence, so I think it is not completely unreasonable to believe that there are trolls in northern Europe. Other than that, I don't know what to say about trolls.

And that was my very long thought.