i’ve been wondering for a long time if dragons are real or not. considering my background, i’m stuck with dragons being very powerful and good creatures. but i still want to know if they truly exist in our world or have they left.
I expect you mean fire-breathing dragons, not the Komodo dragon.
It is interesting that when I roleplay, all my players know what I mean by a huge Red Dragon.
But this just proves that the legends of dragons are romantic and interesting, so we’ve all enjoyed reading fiction about them.
It comes down to evidence (which threads about religion and the paranormal are always discussing).
There is simply no physical evidence for any Dragon.
You state that dragons are powerful and good. What about the dragons that were reputed to eat maidens? Smaug was pretty nasty. What is your source of this belief?
I also assume that when you say ‘have they left?’, you mean become extinct, rather than developed space-travel.
If you mean dragon in the sense of fire-breathing, winged, killed by St. George dragons - no, they don’t exist and never have.
If, OTOH, you mean dragon in the sense of a large lizard, then yes they do exist. Komodo dragons may be what you are looking for, but they are not to be trifled with.
Many postulate that the dragon myth came from discovery of dinosaur fossils. It could be said that dragons existed as dinosaurs; obviously somewhat different from the dragons of myth.
I’m going to ignore the silliness of this question and the sneaking suspicion that you are a troll, and give you some real information anyway.
I’ll assume that you are referring the dragon of western mythology, as the dragon concept has developed independently in several cultures and it is unclear which you are referring to. ‘Dragon’ is derived from the Greek word for serpent, and of course serpents large and small continue to be real creatures.
As far a sentient creatures of evil, it would be difficult to trace the western myth to a single source, since a multitude of cultures have incorporated dragons into their mythos and it impossible to decide definitively which have been borrowed from and which have not.
An early pre-christian account that western scholars would have had access to is the story of Lilith, first wife of Adam. Lilith is described as a night demon who fornicates with men. After parting company with Adam who goes on to mate with Eve in the story of Genisis, Lilith is given Samael as a husband, but he has been castrated by God. A blind dragon [the Dragon that is in the sea (Isa. 27:1)] is able to bring about a successful union. From this point on in the text, serpent imagery is plentiful. Samael is called the Slant Serpent, while Lilith is referred to as Tortuous Serpent (Isa 27:1). Interesting that in the story taking place parallel to these events, it is a serpent that convinces Eve to eat from the forbidden tree. Continuing in the dragon theme, the bible goes on to use such symbolism for both Satan and Leviathan.
Near as I can tell, western dragons were portrayed as cunning serpents until some time after the story of St. George slaying the dragon. The fire and wings may have been added for the purpose of simple embellishment, or may have been borrowed from the dragon iconography of other cultures.
Back to the question: I’d give the answer as yes. The western concept of the dragon is clearly derived from the real life serpent. Are there any flying, fire breathing, or sentient dragons? Only in the stories.
A convenient hypothesis, but are you aware of any evidence to suggest that this is true? My understanding is that while the discovery of fossils has been documented, their attribution to dragons has not. If you have a source though, I’d be very interested. Might just save this OP 
I can think of a number of reasons why the above might not be true. For one thing, the issue of what fossils actually represented was debated heavily during the 17th century in Europe; the were still pockets of debate as late as 1726 in some areas. Essentially, it was not known whether fossils represented a mineralization of organic material, or whether they represented a tranformation from the “mineral” realm to the “animal” realm.
One of the earliest known discoveries of a fossil that was later attributed to a dinosaur was in 1677 (in the midst of the above debate). It consisted of only the end-piece of a long bone, and looked rather like a large, stoney testicle sack (for those who believed fossils were the remains of organic beings, it was thought to be the fossiled remains of a giant’s scrotum - in reality, it was the lower end of a Megalosaurus femur).
While there could have been dinosaur fossils discovered earlier, it is questionable that these would have a) been identified as organic remains, and b) attributed to the remains of a European dragon (the so-called “heraldic dragon” that we are most familiar with). In addition, the primary “dragon” type depicted throughout much of Europe during the medieval period was of the “wurm” variety: wingless, long, slender - in many respects, very similar to the Chinese renditions.
Medieval comparative anatomy being what it was, I rather doubt anyone would even associate any discovered dinosaur bones with something “reptilian” at all; more likely, any large limb bones would have been attributed to the Biblical “giants” who allegedly roamed the earth.
Then, of course, you get to the question of what “real” means.
It is not terribly difficult to refute the proposition: “Resolved, that at some time in the past and at some point on the face of the earth, large, fire-breathing, winged reptiles with a fixation on gold and a fondness for consuming virgins as between-meal snacks once existed as organic entities.”
On the other hand, did anyone open this thread expecting to find a discussion of fuzzy bunnies or what someone’s concept of God did on August 4, 1323 B.C.?
Our common concept of “dragon” is real, or we would not be able to have an intelligent discussion about same. It merely has a non-physical referent.
I’m interested in what you meant by this:
Both the background reference (what is your background?) and the concept of stuck (is anyone actually stuck with anything), beg for explaination.
My own crackpot theory is that imagery of dragons occasionally cropped up in nightmarish or drug-induced visions, even among peoples who seldom came into contact with reptiles. Our ancestors once feared being gobbled up by ravenous reptiles and this instinctive imprint remains buried deep in our psyches even though the dinosaurs themselves are long gone.
Along these same lines is the common fear among children of monsters under the bed. Children are more in touch with primitive instincts than adults, and there was indeed a time when there were monsters lurking in the shadows.
When I first related this hypothesis to a friend, he said, “Aw, you got that from The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan”. Well, I was not familiar with it at the time, but now I highly recommend it.
sqweels: the problem with that theory is that not all cultures considered the dragon an object of terror…quite often the opposite, an object of reverence. Some legends credit them with all Creation, others fortell them being responsible for the final destruction.
As for dragons existing today…well, physical dragons, we can only wish. But spiritual dragons, ah, now there’s a lot of us. There’s just no organized church or anything
Yes, Mekhazzio, but once imagery of dragons had re-emerged and entered a cultures as artistic renderings, their meaning can become transformed. Warriors could emulate the power on ferociousness of dragons. If you put a dragon on your shield or helmet and succeed in scaring off your enemies, you might conclude that they are “luckey”.
Mythology takes over and runs with it.
Sorry no refs, just the old “read it somewhere” and it sounded good.
Darwin’s Finch has some objections as I’m sure you read, but I’m not sure I’m buying them. I think that even ancient peoples could recognize the fossilized skull of say, a T. Rex, as a some sort of skeletal remains. They would have had all sorts of skulls around from animals, so the general concept of a skull wouldn’t be new to them. Plus, I think the teeth would be a major clue. And, the fact that they were made of rock and not bone might have simply added to the magical nature of it.
I agree that a large limb bone likely wouldn’t have started a dragon myth, but I can easily see a T. Rex skull or some other large dino predator’s skull starting one.
Vlad Tepes of Wallachia, called Dracul, was a member of the Emperor’s Order of the Dragon, and took his nickname from the Romanian for “dragon.”
Barring a visit to Komodo, human dragons are as close as we’re gonna get.
You might want to have a look at Adrienne Mayor’s recent book The First Fossil Hunters. I believe that in one case she shows a fossil Wooly Rhinocerous skull that contributed to a dragon legend, and she does correlate fossil finds with other creatures. See also the essays of Willy Ley (as in Willy Ley’s Exotic Zoology) for some items besides fossils which have inspired dragon stories.
On the whole, I think Waverly’s answers are the best – they’re what I’d have said if I hadn’t found this thread so late. Have a look at T.H. White’s The Bestiary: A Book of Beasts and its entry on “Draco”.
While I don’t disagree that the essence of the above might be correct, the details aren’t: T. rex was exclusively North American, whereas the western dragon concept was primarily European. Obviously, however, that doesn’t discount those dinosaur fossils which could be found in Europe.
Certainly, the concept of “skull” would be not be foreign to early peoples. However, there is a difference in appearance between bones of even a few thousand years old and bones of several millions of years old. For the former, they are still recognizable as bones, whereas for the latter, they are, for the most part, rock.
As an example of bones supporting (or creating) mythology, in addition to CalMeacham’s example of the Wooly Rhino, there is the Wooly Mammoth, whose skull looks for all the world like one which might belong to the mythical Cyclops. However, note, again, that Wolly Rhino and Wolly Mammoth skulls are clearly bone. It is also more likely to find them fully exposed, whereas one doesn’t tend to see dinosaur skulls lying about; one finds them embedded in the surrounding rocks.
Again, note that even if dinosaur fossils were found, as I noted above it was not even understood that these were the remains of organisms. More likely, they might have been seen as mineral mimicry of the animal (or vegetable) world. I find it possible that the sighting of a dinosaur skull in a rock might indicate to a person that dragons might be present (a sort of warning, carved into the rock, if you will), but not that the fossil itself belonged to a dragon (in other words, such a find likely would have supported a belief in dragons, but probably would not have started such a belief).
Cal
That book was already on my ‘to read’ list. I’ll have to move it up a slot or two. The synopses I have seen didn’t mention dragons, nor did I find accounts of ancient fossil finds still in existence and easily traceable to the myths they may have spawned, but I’ll reserve judgment until giving it a read. It seems that it would be easy to say that the plentiful ceratopian fossils of Gobi spawned the griffin mythology by making circumstantial correlations between the mythos and the morphology of the fossils. But finding an identifiable bone or depiction thereof in the context of a Griffin motif would constitute convincing objective evidence. One would think the ancients thought very highly of griffin remains, keeping them and treating them with due reverence. I’m eager to find out how well this premise is supported.
Our friend crazy_nut is probably Asian, quite possibly Chinese.
If so, Dragons are a major part of his religious belief.
A little more kindness might, therefore, be in order.
crazy_nut–there is no particular physical evidence for anybody’s religious beliefs.
That’s why we have this idea called faith.
You don’t need to see your Dragons–just as long as they keep an eye on you. 
Hey, this guy is called crazy_nut, so obviously he’s both crazy AND a nut…hey, waitasecond…
The dragons of Norse mythology were linnorms. This translates as heath worm. They were originally depicted as giant snakes. They had no wings, and did not breathe fire. Of course, later translators substituted the dragons of their own culture. Just as Wagner changed the Valkeries from thin, muscular to Rubenesque, he changed the dragon Fafnir from linnorm to standard firebreathing beast.
Any tourist store in Hawaii carries reproduction dragon masks. These match no dragon image I’ve seen anywhere else, and being a Tolkien fan and a player of Dungeons&Dragons, I’ve seen plenty.
The traditional Chinese dragon is serpentine, with short legs, a big nose, and a mustache.
As you can see, the definition of dragon varied from culture to culture. At present, with Anne McAffrey and others writing about them and Boris Vallejo and others drawing them, dragons are depicted in all shapes, sizes, color, temperments and inteligences.
Other than dinosaurs and Komodos, there is no evidence of dragons ever existing. Humans are highly imaginative. Dragons were likely invented out of pure imagination. A find of bones, might have added weight to the legend but would not have been needed to its birth.