|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2002 : 14:38:53
|
The Chinese zodiac contains 12 animals. The Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig.
Why is the dragon listed among currently extant animals? Simple logic indicates that the grouping of this "mythical creature" among the "real creatures" doesn't make much sense unless the dragon once existed as a contemporary to the other 11 zodiac animals.
Could the dragon really be some extinct species of dinosaur? Is this yet another of the accumulation of example that indicate man and dinosaurs once lived together?
Is the concept that dinosaurs died out 65MY ago the real conspiracy?
Passing thought:
If the dragon used by the Chinese is just mythical then placing it with the other 11 real animals would be like carving the head of Mickey Mouse next to the presidents on Mt. Ruchmore.
Kacey
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 15:04:09 [Permalink]
|
Ok I will bite. You have found a traditional group of beings that lists a mythical animal listed together with real ones. There are many possible explanations for this. You choose, that the mythical cinese Dragon is a real animal, as an explanation. You did this based on what?
What makes you prefer this explanation in favour of other possible ones? Do you have any further evidence for your theory?
You further theorizes that this mhystical being could be related to the being we commonly call dinosaurs.
Have you seen pictures of Chinese dragons? What kind of dinosaur could they be related to?
Then you mention a conspiracy involving the age of earth. Are you aware that such a conspiracy would involve a siginficant fraction of the people alive today? Many of those have no interest in God one way or another. The majority of the people who had to have been involved in this hypothetical conspiracy - today and in the past - actually belived in god.
And you base your theory that millions if not billions of people are out to get you on what? Another theory that in turn is based on another theory that tries to explain why the chinese zodiac has a dragon constellation?
It is a nice set of theories, but it would be nicer if you had any evidence to support it.
Edited by - Lars_H on 05/19/2002 15:10:23 |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 15:05:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why is the dragon listed among currently extant animals? Simple logic indicates that the grouping of this "mythical creature" among the "real creatures" doesn't make much sense unless the dragon once existed as a contemporary to the other 11 zodiac animals.
I must have been sick on the day this was covered in logic class. Just how does logic indicate that this shows dragons were once real? You should perhaps start by showing that the Chinese Zodiac is anything but a quaint leftover of a supertitious past. As far as I know the Zodiac has no significance whatsoever other than cultural. It would be just as significant if Mickey Mouse was on it. In fact, in these modern times it might be even more significant.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 15:27:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Why is the dragon listed among currently extant animals? Simple logic indicates that the grouping of this "mythical creature" among the "real creatures" doesn't make much sense unless the dragon once existed as a contemporary to the other 11 zodiac animals.
I must have been sick on the day this was covered in logic class. Just how does logic indicate that this shows dragons were once real? You should perhaps start by showing that the Chinese Zodiac is anything but a quaint leftover of a supertitious past. As far as I know the Zodiac has no significance whatsoever other than cultural. It would be just as significant if Mickey Mouse was on it. In fact, in these modern times it might be even more significant.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Perhaps you were sick on that day....It just seems a little strange that a "mythical" creature would be added to the ranks of the other 11 'real' creatures. No?
Kacey |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 15:30:17 [Permalink]
|
If the existence of a dragon in the Chinese zodiac is evidence of the existence of real dragons, what do we make of such familiar constellations in our own system as Hydra, Monoceros (the Unicorn) and Pegasus?
Or mythological characters in the skies like Cepheus, Perseus and Andromeda?
That these animals and people really existed in ancient times?
Or that folklore and imagination have played a big role in creating the pictures we make in the sky?
Ford, there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out. |
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 15:35:08 [Permalink]
|
If the existence of a dragon in the Chinese zodiac is evidence of the existence of real dragons, what do we make of such familiar constellations in our own system as Hydra, Monoceros (the Unicorn) and Pegasus?
As I pointed out in the first post the dragon is asociated with 11 other currently living species of animals. The constellations you present are not.
Kacey |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 15:50:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Perhaps you were sick on that day....It just seems a little strange that a "mythical" creature would be added to the ranks of the other 11 'real' creatures. No?
I see absolutely nothing to base anything off of this. You are suggesting that the appearance of a mythological creature in the Chinese Zodiac which is itself mumbo jumbo indicates that this creature actually lived. There is no logic here at all. You would have to accept that this Zodiac meant anything at all to proceed and I don't. So, you must really be into this Zodiac. Tell us about it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 15:57:49 [Permalink]
|
I see absolutely nothing to base anything off of this. You are suggesting that the appearance of a mythological creature in the Chinese Zodiac which is itself mumbo jumbo indicates that this creature actually lived. There is no logic here at all. You would have to accept that this Zodiac meant anything at all to proceed and I don't. So, you must really be into this Zodiac. Tell us about it.
@tomic
I'm just asking why a mythological creature is presented with 11 currently living creatures?
I believe a logical conclusion is that it was once witnessed by humans when all 12 were living. That's all.
As far as the zodiac goes, it is mumbo jumbo. Just like horoscopes.
Kacey |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 16:01:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If the existence of a dragon in the Chinese zodiac is evidence of the existence of real dragons, what do we make of such familiar constellations in our own system as Hydra, Monoceros (the Unicorn) and Pegasus?
[red]As I pointed out in the first post the dragon is asociated with 11 other currently living species of animals. The constellations you present are not.
Kacey
OK lets take another example.
The Chinese dragon does not only occur in the zodiac, but in many other places. For example the five directions/elements are each assigned a gurdian animal. The Tortoise , the Tiger, the Serpent, the Dragon and the Phoenix.
If we accept your theory we have here four 'real' animals and one mystical one. Unlike the Dragon/Dinosaur connection we have never found anything that even remotly resembls the remains of a Fire-bird. But considering that he is made out of fire we would not expect to find anything.
Dou you think that the phoenix is real, too.
Another example of one mystical animal listed with a number of real ones is Job 39 of the Bible. Among many real animals we find refernce to a unicorn. That means that unicorns are real, too. does it?
So Dragons, Firebirds and Unicorns are or have been real and there has been a giant conspiracy to cover this up?
Edited by - Lars_H on 05/19/2002 16:02:44 |
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 16:10:34 [Permalink]
|
Where is the unicorn mentioned? I seaerched two translations and did not find it.
A chapter and verse would be helpful.
Kacey |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 16:16:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As far as the zodiac goes, it is mumbo jumbo. Just like horoscopes.
You don't see a problem with presenting the Zodiac as some sort of proof that dragons actually existed? You use a source you yourself put no stock in? I suggest you take a step back and look at this another time.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 16:28:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
As far as the zodiac goes, it is mumbo jumbo. Just like horoscopes.
You don't see a problem with presenting the Zodiac as some sort of proof that dragons actually existed? You use a source you yourself put no stock in? I suggest you take a step back and look at this another time.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
You have missed the point @tomic. Whether the zodiac, or should I say the claimes of it is mumbo jumbo, the animals of their zodiac actually exist. The question still is, why the dragon if they did not witness it?
Kacey |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 16:31:20 [Permalink]
|
Why did they have a Zodiac at all when it's existence was meaningless in the first place making anything to do with it meaningless?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 16:35:48 [Permalink]
|
Kacey> 5000 years ago, a group of Greek sailors found the head of a cyklop. Well, it was actually the skull of an elephant, the hole for the trunk was mistaken for a huge eyesocket.
In the 17th century, German physiscist Otto von Guericke, famed for showing the strength of vacuum, found and described the skeleton of a unicorn.
Europe viewed dragons as evil. As malevolent creatures or a sign of the devil. That was not the case in the far east, were dragons were both benign, neutral or malevolent. In all places early finds of dinosaur bones were interpreted as dragons. In Europe there is a 17th century record of a scientific expedition to the Carpatian mountains. An expedition that found dragon-bones.
Now, there are no unicorns or cyklops. And no dragons. But the Chinese viewed them as powerful and benign creatures, so even if they couldn't find a living specimen, it doesn't mean they didn't believe they existed. It does not prove they do exist.
The Western zodiac sign of Sagittarius is often depicted as a centaur. Rams, bulls, twins, crabs, lions, scorpions, fish, people carrying water, maidens and goats exist, too. Not centaurs, though.
[Edited for an "a"]
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams
Edited by - Omega on 05/19/2002 16:36:56 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 16:40:35 [Permalink]
|
I read a very interesting artical some years back in some magazine or other concerning the orgines of the dragon myths. The thought was that fossil dinosaur bones had been found and, to the finders, these remains could only have come from dragons. Sounds pretty good, anyway. The artical further stated that these fossils were important in Chinese medicine. They were ground into a powder and sold as, if I remember right: 'Dragon Dust'. It was reputed to cure all of the usual and act as an aphrodsiac in the bargan.
As to the fire-reathing abilities and all other dragonish talents, one only needs to glance at Snopes to see how ridiculous myths start and how tenaciously they hang on.
Welcome to the board, Kacey!
f
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
- Albert Einstein
Edited by - filthy on 05/19/2002 16:44:42 |
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 16:56:28 [Permalink]
|
A reference for Lars h;
The animals of Job 39 listed in my bible are as follows, mountain goats, wild donkey, wild ox, ostrich, stork, horse, locust, hawk and eagle. (all are real)
In verse 9 some translations have listed the wild ox as a unicorn. The KJV is one of those translations.
The question is, what is the unicorn? Does the bible intend to convey the mythical horse like creature unicorn or another animal?
Read DEU 33:17 and let me know if this sounds like the mythical unicorn.
Even Job 39:10 presents a different picture of the horse like unicorn that you would have us believe it is talking about.
“Can you hold him to the furrow with a harness? Will he till the valleys behind you?”
The two verses above sound more like the wild ox or as some people call it the one horned rhinocerous. Even the biblical scholars agree.
As you can see, the “unicorn” mentioned in the bible is real and is listed with other real animals...unlike the dragon.
Kacey |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
