Dragons Are Real

“This is impossible because dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time[. D]inosaurs lived in the Mesozoic era, which stretches from 251 million BC to 65.5 million BC. No humans lived during this time period.” The Coelacanth was once thought extinct for 65 million years. Using your logic, modern Coelacanths are impossible. I'm not even arguing that any dinosaurs are alive today. I'm arguing it's plausible that a smoke-breathing dinosaur shared the earth with people at any point in human history. My opponent's argument amounts to rejecting science itself, since all scientific claims are inherently tentative and subject to the possibility of being revised, or even outright rejected, in the future. When Con says it's impossible for dinosaurs to have ever lived with people, he's not making a scientific claim, but a religious one. He's putting undue faith in a tentative explanation. “Yes, water boils at about 100 C and turns into vapor[...] Vapor is not smoke. It takes much higher temperatures to produce smoke.” Plant matter can smoke at this temperature. Considering that the Bombardier Beetle can achieve this temperature, it is obviously plausible that some dinosaur which lived with humans did too. “[S]ulfuric acid can have serious corroding effects on stone. That means living tissue wouldn't stand a chance.” The necessary droplet of sulfuric acid could have been produced only right when it was needed. Also, it didn't have to be sulfuric acid. A more bio-friendly catalyst could have been used instead. “The reaction my opponent mentioned also produces extremely high temperatures and if this happened inside the animal, then the poor dinosaur would simply get cooked.” If the dinosaur uses the same temperatures as the Bombardier Beetle (which are sufficient to produce smoke), this doesn't have to be a problem. After all, smoke can be produced at a temperature which isn't enough to “cook”, as most who have used a smoker can tell you. “Yes, but the fire source is outside their body (hand-held torch). A dragon would have to have the entire process occur inside the body.” This doesn't have to be a problem, as any fire-eater can attest. “Gizzard stones must be very smooth[...] If the stone is smooth, then there is virtually no possible way that these stones could[...] produce a spark. Also don't forget that since they are inside the body, they are moist, making it impossible to make a spark.” Actually, smooth stones can produce sparks. Besides, I'm not arguing that birds can produce sparks. It's not as if dinosaurs had the same exact gizzards that birds do today. Birds of dinosaur ancestry would obviously be very different than their ancestors. If the gizzard-like dragon organ were close up front in the mouth, it could be exposed to air and dried. It's not like all bodily cavities have to be moist, anyways. Feel inside your ear canal. Hopefully, it's not soaking wet. “Scientists managed to identify gizzards in dinosaurs didn't they? That is soft tissue as well.” I don't think any fossilized gizzards have ever been found, actually; only stones which were inferred to have been in the gizzard before it decayed. It's called a gastrolith, which is way different than a fossilized gizzard. Even if a fossilized gizzard were recognized as such, it would be because we have living examples to compare it to. We have no such living examples of smoke-producing organs, so we may not recognize them if we do find them. “You may think that the speculation is baseless, but you are not a scientist.” Neither is the author of that article. He's a journalist, not a scientist, as evidenced by the fact he earned his degree from a reporting program. “In fact, my opponent completely ignores the next page of the article.” I didn't ignore it, and the source of the article explains that “there are severe limits on what inferences can be made, because we lack critical information on central neural connectivity as well as peripheral responses and sensitivities.” So my hypothesis is still plausible, especially considering the source literally marked one of the cavities with a “?” because they weren't sure what it was.(5) “This setup would have allowed hot blood circulating through the creatures' heads to dump excess heat into the airways, helping to cool their brains and the rest of their bodies.” This is completely consistent with fire-breathing catalyzing the cooling process, since it expels heat from the dinosaur's body. “My opponent mentions how wide-spread the myths/legends of dragons are. There is a very simple explanation to this[:] Legends and stories travel quickly.” No, apparently Con ignored my quote from Animal Planet which stated that dragon stories exist in virtually every country worldwide, in cultures that had no contact with each other. Is Con really suggesting that Australian dragon stories share an origin with the Iceland stories, or Central American stories, or Asian ones? “[A]n expert on the subject:"From a biological standpoint they couldn't really have existed - not if you think of a dragon with wings and four legs, breathing fire.” I already explained that I'm not arguing for that type of dragon, because that type would have 6 limbs and I have doubts about it's plausibility. “It's just like myths about Atlantis and vampires and such.” First, Atlantis is not even close to a worldwide phenomenon. Second, the aspects of vampire stories which are worldwide are actually true. There really are animals, insects, and even people that suck blood. It follows that the aspects of dragon stories which are worldwide are also true. “People think of vampires as crazy, bloodthirsty, pale humans who want nothing but blood and can't step in the sun.” That's the European vampire. Hardly a worldwide phenomenon. “No evidence supports this, even though hints of vampires are found in many texts[...]” There aren't just “hints” of dragons, they are straightforwardly documented. Around 200 A.D., Philostratus records the following: The whole of India is girt with dragons of enormous size; for not only the marshes are full of them, but the mountains as well, and there is not a single ridge without one. Now the marsh kind are sluggish in their habits and are thirty cubits long, and they have no crest standing up on their heads, but in this respect resemble the she-dragons. Their backs however are very black, with fewer scales on them than the other kinds[. P]oets declare that the congener of this one in the grove of Nemea also had a crest, a feature which we could not verify in regard to the marsh dragons. And the dragons along the foothills[...] reach a greater length, and [...] actually have a crest, of moderate extent and height when they are young; but as they reach their full size, it grows with them and extends to a considerable height, at which time also they turn red and get serrated backs. This kind also have beards[...] Now the dragons of the mountains have scales of a golden color, and in length excel those of the plain, and they have bushy beards, which also are of a golden hue; and their eyebrows are more prominent than those of the plain, and their eye is sunk deep under the eyebrow, and emits a terrible and ruthless glance. And they give off a noise like the clashing of brass whenever they are burrowing under the earth, and from their crests, which are all fiery red, there flashes a fire brighter than a torch. They also can catch the elephants, though they are themselves caught by the Indians[...] But often the Indian, in spite of his axe and his cunning, is caught by the dragon[...] It was impossible however to ascertain the number of years that this creature lives, nor would my statements be believed. This is all I know about dragons. In the encyclopedia Natural History, Pliny the Elder corroborates the previous record of the Indian dragons: India produceth the biggest [elephants] as also the Dragons, which are continually at variance and fighting with them; and those of such Greatness, that they can easily clasp round the Elephants[...] they lie under the Water in Rivers, watching for the Elephants when they are drinking; when they catch fast hold of their [trunk], and having clasped it, they fix their Bite in the Elephant's Ear, because that is the only Part which they cannot defend with their Hand. These Dragons are so large, that they are able to receive all the Elephant's Blood. Thus are they sucked dry by them until they fall down dead ; and the Dragons thus drunken, are crushed under them, and both die together. [Ethiopia has] as great Dragons as in India, being twenty Cubits long. But I chiefly wonder at this one Thing: why Juba should think they were Crested. They are produced most in a Country of Ethiopia[...] It is well known that Regulus[...] near the River Bograda assailed a Serpent with his Military Engines[...] as he would have done to a Town; and when Subdued, the Length of the Serpent was found to be 120 Feet. The Skin and Jaws[...] were preserved in a Temple at Rome until the War of Numantia[...] There is a Fish[...] called Lucerna, for the Resemblance it hath to a Light; for it thrusteth forth its fiery Tongue out of the Mouth, and in calm Nights giveth Light.Sources Con requested: http://www.britannia.com... British Dragons by Jacqueline Simpson http://books.google.com... "[D]ragons are described as enormous, winged, fire-breathing serpents. Have any skeletons or fossils of such creatures ever been found?" My resolution doesn't require winged dragons, and fire-breathing may not be recognized form fossils alone. CON: "[T]here is no direct evidence of the existence of dragons." I'm just arguing it's plausible, and I like to think I've succeeded. (5) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...