hey you know that a sea serpent could be a dinosaur, but a dinosaur could also be a dragon and there also could be a connection between the dragon and the sea serpent. the point is why don't you have any dragon things on this sight?

How you found this site: cz.com

I guess I just haven't gotten to it yet. Right now I'm working on "Problems for the Skeptics II", it deals with evidence that man has seen and lived at the same time as dinosaurs. Soon I will be publishing, "Pterosaurs in Oregon" and "Mokele-mbembe."

Hundreds or thousands of years after Noah's Flood, some dinosaurs and I believe a few large crocodiles were called by the name dragons. Even some evolutionists admit that dragons and dinosaurs do look the same but it is impossible because man could have never seen dinosaurs. Today they are no longer called dragons but by different names such as, Mokele-mbembe, Loch Ness Monster, Ogopogo, Queensland Plesiosaurs, the Monster of Lake Galilee, and such.

Website: livingdinos.com

so your saying you don't think there aren't any dragons? there's just dinosors and lake monsters

How you found this site: cz.com

No, I do think there are dragons, it's just that they are now called by the name "dinosaurs."

Website: www.livingdinos.com

there is a big diffrence between dragon and dinasor and if you don't know that then you can't put dragons on this web site

How you found this site: cz.com

There are dragons that are myths and those are not dinosaurs.

Which dragons are you talking about?

Website: www.livingdinos.com

the ones that have big wings breathe fire/ice

How you found this site: cz.com

Fire breathing dragons are not completely impossible. The ones with large wings could very well be pterosaurs or a new species.

Website: livingdinos.com

ok does any one but me think that thare are real dragons [that breath fire and have big wings] not gust dino's and lake monsters [apparintly dino's] then please help me thell pill here thank you.

Fire and/or ice breathing, flying dragons? Let me tell you an old story.

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles, all the way down."

The moral of the story: Some concepts are simply not worth addressing--they're just turtles, all the way down.

your right it is just that this topic is not a turtle all the way down to me its just that well a unknow creature is unkown and you cant fight abuut something that has two storys even if that both aren't completly true so why not make a section for both storys.

Shad, you are making an extraordinary claim--that enormous winged reptiles that eject fire and/or ice from their mouths once existed and/or still exist. The evidence contrary to this claim is that there is no example of such a creature, living or dead, to confirm your claim; there is no other creature known that can eject fire and/or ice from its mouth; there is no example (living or dead) of winged reptiles (or any winged creature) on the scale commonly associated with dragons; there is no known mechanism by which a creature could breathe fire and/or ice without harm.

The only evidence for dragons are apocryphal stories. There are well-known cases of human witnesses being deceived (I suggest reading Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World"). Therefore, the strength of your evidence does not rise to the level of your claim. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that there are not (and probably never were) fire and/or ice breathing dragons, until such time as someone is able to present better evidence in support of their existance.

Shygetz, you are correct that giant flying reptiles do not breath fire or ice. However, it is possible that in earth's history there was a species of land or water reptile that could breath something similar to fire for a very short period of time. Or at least something that appeared to be fire.

Website: www.livingdinos.com

Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that there are tiny elves living in hollow trees that turn invisible when we come near. The evidence for both of these propositions is about the same, so I will give them the same probability of being true--not bloody likely.

Yes, I see, so you believe that the Bombadier Beetle stories are not true. It's impossible that an insect could produce gasses over 225 degrees hot and produce smoke without killing itself.

Website: www.livingdinos.com

There is no need to "believe in" bombadier beetles--you can see them (speaking of which--where are your fire-breathing dragons?) I also know enough about them to know that what they spew is not fire, is nothing like fire, and could only be mistaken for fire by someone who is blind. They also don't shoot out smoke, they shoot out boiling water (with steam and other chemicals). This is not fire. This is nothing like fire. It's essentially hot water. Also, as far as I know there are no lizards or birds or other animals who do this, only insects, further arguing against even a steam-emitting flying lizard. Finally, the bombadier beetle does this through a specialized gland, not through the digestive or repiratory system, so there is no "breathing" involved. If you don't think this is a problem, try to drink boiling water and see what it does to your mouth. Then (this part is harder), encase your mouth and possibly your esophagous in chitin (you can use a thick layer of silicon if it's easier) and try to eat. Makes swallowing a bit harder. Additionally, no fossils of reptiles with the necessary "mouth guard" for breathing steam has been found.

So, I repeat--you have the same amount of evidence for fire/ice breathing dragons as you do for invisible elves living in trees--unsubstantiated fairy tales. Therefore, I would assign them both about the same probability of existing.

See, that's how rationality works. You have an idea, you gather evidence, you evaluate the idea in the light of evidence, then you either discard the idea, modify the idea, or make a public claim. You want to skip the hard work of the second part, and go straight from idea to claim. You then try to cover it up by saying "Well, it MIGHT be true, and you can't prove otherwise." Using the same "logic", you can claim anything.

For example, I claim that I am God, and that you are all figments of my dreams. It MIGHT be true. Prove that it isn't, and I'll believe in your dragons. Otherwise, you should either drop claims that don't have evidence supporting them, or be as willing to worship me as you are to present these claims, as there is equal evidence supporting both of them.

thanks for bringing that point out. you absloutly right,right pill

While evidence that dragons of myth are real creatures is shaky at best, I feel compelled to chime in with this news article:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-8-7/31030.html

The incident took place one year ago. The article is about a man who photographed flying dragons over Tibet. This story was also reported on the Sound of Hope radio network. I still have an mp3 of the report.

It's not compelling evidence of dragons, but it's a fascinating story, nonetheelss. Enjoy!

Thanks for telling us about it. That story is very interesting. It may have been an odd cloud, hoax, or possibly a real creature.

Website: www.livingdinos.com

Shygetz - "There is no need to "believe in" bombadier beetles--you can see them (speaking of which--where are your fire-breathing dragons?)"

What if there were only "sightings" of bombardier beetle? You would say it wasn't true. If there were reptiles that could brefly expel a fire-like substance in earth's past then they are probably extinct now.

Shygetz - "I also know enough about them to know that what they spew is not fire, is nothing like fire, and could only be mistaken for fire by someone who is blind. They also don't shoot out smoke, they shoot out boiling water (with steam and other chemicals). This is not fire. This is nothing like fire. It's essentially hot water."

Phillip - They do not shoot out just hot water. The bombardier beetle has twin chambers at the rear of it's body, in which he stores two chemicals - Hydroquinone and hydroden peroxide dissovled into water. In the beetle, this mixture of chemicals is combinded with no reation at all. The solutions remain crystal clear. The beetle's combustion tubes, heat the liquid and gasses up to 212 degrees, generating alot of pressure. When the pressure gets high enough, the beetle opens the valves on the end of his combustion tubes, and the hot gasses shoot out with great force. Scientists using special high-speed cameras have recored both audible "pops" and puffs of smoke. The Bombardier Beetle does not breath smoke and fire, but rather uses it sometimes as defense. So why couldn't another creature?

And I don't say that there were ice breathing reptiles.

Shygetz - "For example, I claim that I am God, and that you are all figments of my dreams. It MIGHT be true. Prove that it isn't."

Phillip - Its very easy to prove you aren't God. Don't be foolish.

-Dinoman Phil

Website: livingdinos.com

Phil--"What if there were only "sightings" of bombardier beetle? You would say it wasn't true. If there were reptiles that could brefly expel a fire-like substance in earth's past then they are probably extinct now.

If there were only apocryphal stories about fire-breathing beetles, you're right, I'd say it wasn't true until I saw better evidence. But there isn't just stories. There are beetles. If there were dragons, I would gladly admit they exist. You have no dragons to show me. You have no evidence for dragons (fossils, eggs, clear pictures, etc.)

Phillip - "They do not shoot out just hot water. The bombardier beetle has twin chambers at the rear of it's body, in which he stores two chemicals - Hydroquinone and hydroden peroxide dissovled into water. In the beetle, this mixture of chemicals is combinded with no reation at all. The solutions remain crystal clear. The beetle's combustion tubes, heat the liquid and gasses up to 212 degrees, generating alot of pressure. When the pressure gets high enough, the beetle opens the valves on the end of his combustion tubes, and the hot gasses shoot out with great force. Scientists using special high-speed cameras have recored both audible "pops" and puffs of smoke. The Bombardier Beetle does not breath smoke and fire, but rather uses it sometimes as defense. So why couldn't another creature?"

The "combustion tube" does no such thing. Protein catalysts are added to the tube (catalase and peroxidase). These catalyze an oxidation of the hydroquinones to p-quinone, and the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to oxygen and water. This exothermic reaction heats the water, which increases pressure and allows the beetle to shoot out the mixture. While p-quinones are an irritant and very smelly, the damage is done by hot water and steam, like I said. There is no combustion, and no fire (and therefore, no smoke), just steam. Furthermore, it ejects it from a gland in its butt, not breathing it from its mouth. No fire, no smoke, and no breathing, and certainly no dragons. Other creatures certainly could use a similar mechanism for defense. But you don't have any to show me.

Phil--"And I don't say that there were ice breathing reptiles."

Ah, but the stories you rely EXCLUSIVELY on DO say that such things exist. You have as much evidence for ice-breathing dragons as you do fire-breathing ones. So, why discard one and not the other? And why discard the gremlins and elves? You have as much evidence for each of these phenomena.

Phillip - "Its very easy to prove you aren't God. Don't be foolish."

Then do so. You saw my challenge, and I meant it--prove I am not God, and I will believe in your dragons. If it is very easy, then it should take no time at all. I should warn you, though, that people have been trying to disprove solipsism for centuries, and decided it cannot be done. But, people have also decided that fire-breathing dragons don't exist. Be a rebel and prove 'em all wrong.

I see a livley debate has developed since I've been gone.good luck shygetz and phil

How you found this site: cryptozoology.org

Well since this site is obviously all for the Bible such as I am, it does mention dragons in the bible. What phil is tryng to say is that Dragons where ruled out along time ago as mythological creatures and any creature whether dinosaur or dragon will be classified as a reptile similar to dinosaurs.

How you found this site: Wikipedia

Thank you for the input!

Make sure to check this website for new articles and news.

-Dinoman Phil

Website: www.livingdinos.com

come on yes it does what about the ishthar dragon on the ishtar gate?

>>Ryan--Well since this site is obviously all for the Bible such as I am, it does mention dragons in the bible. What phil is tryng to say is that Dragons where ruled out along time ago as mythological creatures and any creature whether dinosaur or dragon will be classified as a reptile similar to dinosaurs.

No, if all they were saying is that, at some point, someone saw a big lizard and thought that it might be a dragon, I'd have little problem with that (it's not much evidence, but then again, it's not that absurd a notion, either). However, we are talking about lizards that fly and breathe fire and/or ice. No person anywhere has any evidence for the existence of a fire/ice breathing lizard at any time. All that exists are stories. If you have evidence, show me. Otherwise, I will file dragons next to the Balrog.

>>shadowshad--come on yes it does what about the ishthar dragon on the ishtar gate?

I don't know what you are addressing or talking about. It helps if you quote the point you are addressing, rather than asking us to guess.

The Bible does speak of a dragon. Do more research before you draw a conclusion.

Website: www.myspace.com/lane01

How you found this site: found it while searching for more info and research on possible living dinosaurs ^.^ Ive always had an interest in the paranormal/cryptozoology

I do have a theory on the fire breathing. I think that natural fires could have possibly occured in those times, and when that happened it probably flushed the dragons out. So while they flew away people would see them and associate them with the cause of the fire. As for ice, ive never heard of that or a tale related to it, aside from seeing it in a movie which doesnt count. Im sure firebreathing is possible for dragons tho, they had a special on dragons on the discovery channel if im correct and explained the possiblity of it.

Website: www.myspace.com/lane01

How you found this site: found it while searching for more info and research on possible living dinosaurs ^.^ Ive always had an interest in the paranormal/cryptozoology

Dragons are the product of ancient cultures and tradition. In Eastern culture (China, Japan, etc.), dragons are described as wingless, non-firebreathing, elongated animals. This "dragon" is viewed positively. It symbolizes power, and prosperity mainly with farmers growing crops. Where did they come up with this majestic "dragon"? Well what is a powerful reptile that lives in water (something that is essential for harvest growth), and that is common in that region? Crocodiles and alligators. The people's religion and culture in the area is what blew up these animals into majestic dragons.
Likewise, in Western Culture (Europe), dragons were described as four-legged reptiles which also had wings, and breathed fire. These "dragons" were looked at negatively. We can tell not only because of paintings and other forms of art in the region, but also in Christianity, a common religion in the area, Satan is even named, "The Red Dragon". It is unknown where they came up with the physical description of this animal. Maybe they exaggerated the description of a pterosaur. Maybe it was created entirely by religion, like the combination of the deceptive serpent (with Adam and Eve), and the typical description of the devil (horns and wings). And unfortunately, surviving dinosaurs and pterosaurs of the flood looked too similar to "dragons" and therefore were killed. Where the fire-breathing comes in, I'm not sure. I saw in some Discover magazine that some dinosaurs had enlarged nasal cavities that may have contained methane gas. Maybe some farmer was warding off some dinosaur from eating his sheep by shoving a torch in it's face, and it unintentionally caused a fire-breathing appearance. But I can tell you this: the thought of a six-legged reptile (four legs and two wings), or any vertebrate of that matter, is ridiculous. I highly doubt a dragon as described in European culture actually existed.

Here's an interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon

Check out sections 2.1 and 3.

Tom,
Nice link and a good, brief response on the history of dragons. However I have to question this;

“And unfortunately, surviving dinosaurs and pterosaurs of the flood looked too similar to "dragons" and therefore were killed.”

I think this is pure speculation on your part, you make this sound like fact. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Be careful what you use as evidence.

Satyrs and unicorns are mentioned in the Bible too, do you think they actually existed or are they just folklore/myths?

"I think this is pure speculation on your part, you make this sound like fact. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Be careful what you use as evidence."
Let me rephrase: Unfortunately, IN MY OPINION, surviving dinosaurs and pterosaurs...etc
Well we have found artifacts with paintings/carvings of dinosaurs on them, suggesting that dinosaurs were around when people were around(Phil's main website page), after the flood. Some of these paintings/carvings depict people hurting or killing the dinosaur, indicating that they were looked at negatively. If this were the case in Europe, in my opinion, I could see why they would be written off as dragons: they were reptilian in appearance, and they were looked at negatively.

"Satyrs and unicorns are mentioned in the Bible too, do you think they actually existed or are they just folklore/myths?"
I don't believe the unicorns and satyrs described in the Bible were single-horned horses and half men/half beasts. THOSE creatures are folklore/myths. However, I do believe the Bible was describing two types of animals. For example, it says in Job 39:10, "Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?" It is a known fact that the rhinocerus is extremely aggressive and will most likely charge if approached. Also, Isaiah 13:21 says, "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." We all know how goats headbutt with eachother. Two of them rear up on their hind legs, kind of tip-toe towards eachother, then crash headfirst into eachother. Well in my opinion, this behavior could seem like "dancing".

Tom,
Thank you for rephrasing your statement(s). Using Phil’s website as a source for evidence is not the best idea though. He has so much crap on there, would you like to weed out any specifics and present them as evidence? Or do you believe all of his stuff is credible evidence?

Although I don’t agree, I respect your opinions about the unicorns and satyrs. But wow what a violent dance!

If you type in a search with the keywords, "artifacts with dinosaurs on them", you'll find plenty of websites supporting exactly what the keywords say.

So what are your beliefs on the unicorns and satyrs?

”So what are your beliefs on the unicorns and satyrs?”

Mythological creatures, I just don’t agree with your theories of their origins. In any case, as far as them being mentioned in the bible is concerned, it’s just a case of folklore being used as “god’s word” because they were prevailing beliefs at the time.

As far as the search for “artifacts with dinosaurs on them”, I was really hoping you had specific claims that you personally believe. I know of many finds, none of which are very convincing after a little investigation. So for now here are two of the more well known finds, both of which are on Phillip’s home page.
1. The Ica Stones; Fraud, one piece of evidence that points to fraud is the crispness of the engravings, they are quite shallow carvings and if they are as old as is claimed there would be evidence of substantial erosion. Another is the investigation by Spanish investigator Vincente Paris who after four years of investigation took microphotographs of the stones that showed traces of modern paints and sandpaper. That’s just one of his proofs, but its pretty convincing by itself. Also the cave where these were allegedly discovered has never been identified, much less be examined by any legitimate professional, which does nothing to authenticate these as any type of reliable evidence.
2. The Acambro “dinosaurs”; I will keep this short by providing two links;
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html and http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/gef/gef.htm
In addition to the evidence against them I’ll just say that if I was a local in that area and some foreigner offered me money for every figure I could provide, you’d better believe I would come up with as many as I could.

So, I’ll stop there for now, but like I said before I was really hoping you had some specific “evidences” that you believe to be legit.

Well in the Bible, the term "leviathan" is said up until Isaiah, which is long after the flood. Also, the last time the word "leviathan" is used in the Bible, the creature is also referred to as "dragon" in the same verse (Isaiah 27:1). And the word "dragon" is mentioned throughout the old testament, even until the last book. I'll get more in depth with the history of "dragon" sightings in ancient cultures later. I have a book lying around here somewhere that's a good reference.

I fail to see how leviathan and dragons being mentioned in the bible qualify as “artifacts with dinosaurs on them", much less proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. You are taking folklore from an ancient text and twisting it to say what you wish.

Well the main topic now is if dinosaurs and man ever coexisted, right? And your statement of leviathans and dragons being folklore in the Bible is your own opinion, unless you can show me evidence otherwise. The Bible also talks about the behemoth. This seems to be described as a sauropod (Job 40:15-24). Whether you believe what the Bible says is true or not, we have people from ancient times describing animals that match the description of dinosaurs, long before paleontologists ever came about to piece together bones and come up with how a prehistoric animal looked just from it's fossilized remains. That's enough evidence for me but obviously not for you, so like I said, I'll add more to this when I find that book.

Tom said: "And your statement of leviathans and dragons being folklore in the Bible is your own opinion, unless you can show me evidence otherwise."

You and the rest of the Flinstones crowd are well aware (or are willfully unaware) of the VAST amount of paleontological, radiological, and archaeological evidence indicating that dinosaurs were wiped out millions of years before the dawn of man. These evidence suggest that either leviathans and dragons were folklore or sightings of something else that was misinterpreted.

Hey, genious,
Pick up the September 2007 Discover magazine edition. Dinosaurs survived the k-t event. If they survived that, then I have no problem believing they lived long enough to see a human (looking at it in your point of view).

Tom said: "Hey, genious,
Pick up the September 2007 Discover magazine edition. Dinosaurs survived the k-t event. If they survived that, then I have no problem believing they lived long enough to see a human (looking at it in your point of view)."

First of all, Tom, when trying to insult someone by sarcastically writing "Hey, genious", it makes more of a biting impact if you spell genius correctly.

There is one person who has made the claim that he has found a cache of bones that date half a million years after the K-T event. If you'll read carefully, he states "There’s no longer any question that dinosaurs in the area survived the asteroid impact event, finally becoming extinct about a million years later."

Let's assume, for the moment, that future studies support Dr. Fassett's findings. So, what you've done is pushed the extinction of the dinosaurs from 65 MYA to 64-63.5 MYA. The oldest hominid/hominin fossil (not even human, but hominid) is from 6-7 MYA. The first homo sapiens is from 0.5 MYA. To indicate that humans and dinosaurs coexisted a la the AiG museum, you still need to cover about 63 million years of time.

Now, while YOU may be willing to simply wave aside 63,000,000 YEARS of history as granted in your favor, I am less charitable. We know that both dinosaurs' and humans' remains are capable of fossilization. Show me the fossils.

I'll be awaiting the results of the Flintstone Creationists' studious research on this issue...

you know what, i have no problem with debating you, but how about backing the f*ck off with the attitude, huh? Ive got enough on my plate right now. I just had to move 2+ hours away from my fiance and I'm stuck here for God knows how long, and I'm no longer talking to half of my family. The last thing i need is you giving me a snippy attitude about something as simple as if dinos and man coexisted or not.

Wow, talk about a snippy attitude!
Sorry you’re having a rough time, but wow, that language is not very “Christian” of you now is it?
I think your “genius” comment was more of an attitude than what Shygetz said. The “Flintstone creationist” comment was hilarious if you think about it. There is no evidence that man and dinosaur ever co-existed except on the Flintstones (or something else along those lines).

every man has their breaking point. ive just about reached mine

Tom said: "you know what, i have no problem with debating you, but how about backing the f*ck off with the attitude, huh? Ive got enough on my plate right now...The last thing i need is you giving me a snippy attitude about something as simple as if dinos and man coexisted or not."

Then stop posting. Simple enough.

If you expect me to take it easy on what may be the dumbest idea currently percolating through our pop culture becuase you're going through a rough patch, forget it. I am personally sorry for your troubles. I still think this idea is stupid rubbish that's only worthwhile on Saturday mornings in your PJ's.

If you can't handle the Flintstone comment, then quit touting such obvious junk! Like I said before, explain away 63,000,000 intervening years, and then I'll take this idea seriously.

well then what do you think Nessie, Champ, Ogopogo, the pterosaur-like creatures in Angola and South America are?

shame dragons don't exist,or i would consider getting a 3 headed one(preferrably one shoots fire, one ice beams and the third heard fires lightning bolts)

“well then what do you think Nessie, Champ, Ogopogo, the pterosaur-like creatures in Angola and South America are?”

Wishful thinking

To quote Blondie;
Dreaming
Dreaming is free
Dreaming
Dreaming is free
Dreaming
Dreaming is free

to you it is. i dont think "wishful thinking" can be caught on radar, sonar, or video tape. what we need is the government funding to search these areas more in-depth to find out what they really are. We havent explored and discovered everything on this planet. oh, and by the way, here's some other unidentifiable creatures caught on film in Kanasa Lake in China: http://americanmonsters.com/home.php (4th news bulletin down). What do you think they are?
By the way, Blondie's my aunt's aunt. Not a big fan of her music though.

“i dont think "wishful thinking" can be caught on radar, sonar, or video tape.”

Something is caught on radar, sonar and video, but it is wishful thinking that they are actually pterosaur-like creatures. I’ll agree that there needs to be more research, but in the meantime…

“What do you think they are?”

I don’t know, perhaps giant fish? Besides that I can’t understand a **** thing the narrators were saying!
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Sep/106036.htm
http://www.edu.cn/20050617/3141158.shtml
It’s funny how so many unidentified large objects (swimming or not) in lakes are called monsters. Maybe they should be called U. W. O’s - Unidentified Water-bound Objects.

”By the way, Blondie's my aunt's aunt. Not a big fan of her music though.”

Debbie Harry is your aunt’s aunt? How cool is that! I not a big fan but they did have some good tunes. Can you get me her autograph?

I can't believe they censored out ****! Could be darn, but rhymes with ram, just can't believe it!