|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:08 am
Chieftain Twilight for elves... see Neanderthals. they were classified as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis. we humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. when we moved into regions where Neanderthals were, we were the ones who won out. Natural Selection. who's to say we didn't do the same to Elves? Dragons... just because they could be ETs doesn't exclude people rom living earlier lives as them as well. they could have been anything in our universe, including beings from other planets, other galaxies. my folsk even suggested the possibilities that lives could reincarnate between Dimensions! who knows? could be true. and no, i'm not saying you and her are agreeing, just saying that you are both examples of folks who's reasoning i have difficulty taking seriously. and i respect that you criticize mine as well, not in retaliation, but with honest disagreement of the logic. we basically just see things differently, our senses of logic are different. i'm certainly no one to determine who's saneand who's not... i would venture to say neither are you, being just as mortal as i am, but that ain't my place either. still, i am the apperrently Schitzophrenic one, so i'll let you have that and use it to justify your reasoning vs mine. I prefer to see it as some common ground, to be able to reason through things. If one use other words: Dragons from another world? It do not require other "dimensions" as such, nor does it refer to space travel, as "ET" does. It is simply that instead of re-incarnating on "their" planet, they have been reincarnated on this. How do that sound? Elves. To me, they could easily be what i call "hiding in plain sight" today ......... But there is a problem with the word "Elf", really. This is due to Tolkien Ring Novels. You see, he mixed Nordic with Celtic Myth: * Nordic Myth, the word/name/noun of Alf/Elf referred to Dwarves. * Celtic Myth, the beings of beauty, grand in every way, were called Sidhe. Tolkien clearly seems to have mixed those together into what he called "Elves" .......
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:51 am
I'm a skeptic. (And I haven't had my coffee yet.)
Pretty much all the stories of supernatural or mythological creatures I attach to people having some sort of memorable experience with a creature they didn't see clearly. When it came time to tell the tale, exaggerations were made and other people seeing something they didn't quite understand what it was or didn't get a good look perpetuated the myth.
Let's look at the Beast of Gévaudan, for instance. It was reputed by people at the time to be a werewolf. Modern science has determined that more than likely it was actually a unique species of Asian Hyena (now extinct) that was trained to kill.
So until the point when someone can actually prove that any such creatures do or did exist I'll remain skeptic and assume that people's imaginations are running with them. The mind can be a very fertile thing after all.
(P.S. with the exceptions of such elf myths as they're actually small, my theory is that elves were created as a template for the human race's potential, aka we imagined something up that was exactly what we wanted to be.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:15 am
pantherdor I say existed because...well i haven't seen anything like that and there are no clear pictures. Then again i am not near any of the hot spots where they still exist. Where I'm at in the world Existed is a better word. The dimension/timestream/whatever cross hasn't happened here for centuries. I never said they were extinct. You just seemed to be contradicting yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:40 pm
I really have no reason to believe what is considered fantasy creatures. All the evidence such as shows and pictures seem vague and nothing special or close. I've tried watching that one show where the guy goes hunting through the world to find fantasy animals but it always pointed to "This is more likely.".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:36 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx For the most part, I'm a skeptic on anything mythological except right after I read a book like Percy Jackson or Airborn. Dragon stories come from dinosaur bones, and mermaids were really manatees. However that doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility they exist in another realm. Maybe they do. I just am not going to believe that without more people having had a brush with something like a griffin or a unicorn. ... but how can you say that when you have all this apparrent literal belief in the mythology of christianity? confused regardless of whether any of it is true or false or metaphorical or literal, it is by definition mythology. Because nothing crucial depends on my believing in unicorns, except that it would probably make me happy. Besides that, I pretty much tend to believe in something if enough people have a revelation of it, or at least that there's something behind it. Ghosts are real, I think. Other religious revelations are probably either from something we aren't supposed to mess with, or something malevolent. Aliens...who knows? And revelations about God are probably from Abraham's God. If He's real, and omnipotent, then I don't see why He can't do all the things the Bible says He does. And I don't view what's in the Bible as mythology, so there's that. But if it makes you any happier, I'll put it this way: I don't believe in anything mythological that isn't in the Bible. ... it seems you think that the word Myth simply means "untrue." it doesn't. it means Myth. a Myth is a story, a legend, it isn't about whether it is true or not. i guess that's my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:48 pm
Tiina Brown Chieftain Twilight for elves... see Neanderthals. they were classified as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis. we humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. when we moved into regions where Neanderthals were, we were the ones who won out. Natural Selection. who's to say we didn't do the same to Elves? Dragons... just because they could be ETs doesn't exclude people rom living earlier lives as them as well. they could have been anything in our universe, including beings from other planets, other galaxies. my folsk even suggested the possibilities that lives could reincarnate between Dimensions! who knows? could be true. and no, i'm not saying you and her are agreeing, just saying that you are both examples of folks who's reasoning i have difficulty taking seriously. and i respect that you criticize mine as well, not in retaliation, but with honest disagreement of the logic. we basically just see things differently, our senses of logic are different. i'm certainly no one to determine who's saneand who's not... i would venture to say neither are you, being just as mortal as i am, but that ain't my place either. still, i am the apperrently Schitzophrenic one, so i'll let you have that and use it to justify your reasoning vs mine. I prefer to see it as some common ground, to be able to reason through things. If one use other words: Dragons from another world? It do not require other "dimensions" as such, nor does it refer to space travel, as "ET" does. It is simply that instead of re-incarnating on "their" planet, they have been reincarnated on this. How do that sound? sounds in agreement. Tiina Brown Elves. To me, they could easily be what i call "hiding in plain sight" today ......... But there is a problem with the word "Elf", really. This is due to Tolkien Ring Novels. You see, he mixed Nordic with Celtic Myth: * Nordic Myth, the word/name/noun of Alf/Elf referred to Dwarves. * Celtic Myth, the beings of beauty, grand in every way, were called Sidhe. Tolkien clearly seems to have mixed those together into what he called "Elves" ....... um, actually you got that mistaken. Alf litterally means Elf in Old Norse. the Alfar are the Elves, and the Svartalfar are the Dark Elves. but the Svartalfar were also called Duergar, which was a term already used to describe teh Drarves. Duer meant Black. Svart meant Dark. the Celtic Elves may were related to the Sidhe, but the Sidhe were considered greater and more powerful than the Elves, being like Lords to them. they were Elflike, but more Regal. the Elves were also known in Celtic Lore as the "Good People" and the Sidhe were known as the "Noblesse", the "Gentry", and other lordly titles. then their are the God among Faeries: the Tuatha'De Danaan. these were, according to the Mythologies, a race who came to the Brittish Isles before the Celts, and who defeated the Firbolgs. when the Celts took the Isles from the Tuatha, they gave them the Underground as their realm, and worshipped them as Gods. i have done quite a lot of research in these myths, as they are part of my heritage. i'm Polish, German, Scottish, and Cherokee in the largest portions, with bits of Brittish and French mixed in, you see. but yes, i agree that they could very well just be hiding among us. i do believe that the Elves live in Faerie, rather than being direct ancestors of humankind or a extinct species. however, i do believe that the Tuatha are the ancestors of the Celts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:55 pm
Lateralus es Helica I'm a skeptic. (And I haven't had my coffee yet.) Pretty much all the stories of supernatural or mythological creatures I attach to people having some sort of memorable experience with a creature they didn't see clearly. When it came time to tell the tale, exaggerations were made and other people seeing something they didn't quite understand what it was or didn't get a good look perpetuated the myth. Let's look at the Beast of Gévaudan, for instance. It was reputed by people at the time to be a werewolf. Modern science has determined that more than likely it was actually a unique species of Asian Hyena (now extinct) that was trained to kill. So until the point when someone can actually prove that any such creatures do or did exist I'll remain skeptic and assume that people's imaginations are running with them. The mind can be a very fertile thing after all. (P.S. with the exceptions of such elf myths as they're actually small, my theory is that elves were created as a template for the human race's potential, aka we imagined something up that was exactly what we wanted to be.) this is the mentality that i like to see, because it means that you simply refuse to take anyone's word for it. smile i may be a believer where your a skeptic, but at the same time won't settle for belief, i want proof! i seek to find proof. i have some evidence of my theories, but nothing conclusive yet.... i'm very close though to proving the Tuatha to be real, but that won't realy make such big waves anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:10 pm
Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx For the most part, I'm a skeptic on anything mythological except right after I read a book like Percy Jackson or Airborn. Dragon stories come from dinosaur bones, and mermaids were really manatees. However that doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility they exist in another realm. Maybe they do. I just am not going to believe that without more people having had a brush with something like a griffin or a unicorn. ... but how can you say that when you have all this apparrent literal belief in the mythology of christianity? confused regardless of whether any of it is true or false or metaphorical or literal, it is by definition mythology. Because nothing crucial depends on my believing in unicorns, except that it would probably make me happy. Besides that, I pretty much tend to believe in something if enough people have a revelation of it, or at least that there's something behind it. Ghosts are real, I think. Other religious revelations are probably either from something we aren't supposed to mess with, or something malevolent. Aliens...who knows? And revelations about God are probably from Abraham's God. If He's real, and omnipotent, then I don't see why He can't do all the things the Bible says He does. And I don't view what's in the Bible as mythology, so there's that. But if it makes you any happier, I'll put it this way: I don't believe in anything mythological that isn't in the Bible. ... it seems you think that the word Myth simply means "untrue." it doesn't. it means Myth. a Myth is a story, a legend, it isn't about whether it is true or not. i guess that's my point. *shrugs* You're right, at least according to some definitions, , but I'm not gonna call Bible stories 'myths'. It's like how certain definitions of cult might apply to my religion; even if they do, I'm not gonna use the term on any major religion, because it seems like a put down. For me, there's a distinction between Bible stories and myths from other cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:50 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx For the most part, I'm a skeptic on anything mythological except right after I read a book like Percy Jackson or Airborn. Dragon stories come from dinosaur bones, and mermaids were really manatees. However that doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility they exist in another realm. Maybe they do. I just am not going to believe that without more people having had a brush with something like a griffin or a unicorn. ... but how can you say that when you have all this apparrent literal belief in the mythology of christianity? confused regardless of whether any of it is true or false or metaphorical or literal, it is by definition mythology. Because nothing crucial depends on my believing in unicorns, except that it would probably make me happy. Besides that, I pretty much tend to believe in something if enough people have a revelation of it, or at least that there's something behind it. Ghosts are real, I think. Other religious revelations are probably either from something we aren't supposed to mess with, or something malevolent. Aliens...who knows? And revelations about God are probably from Abraham's God. If He's real, and omnipotent, then I don't see why He can't do all the things the Bible says He does. And I don't view what's in the Bible as mythology, so there's that. But if it makes you any happier, I'll put it this way: I don't believe in anything mythological that isn't in the Bible. ... it seems you think that the word Myth simply means "untrue." it doesn't. it means Myth. a Myth is a story, a legend, it isn't about whether it is true or not. i guess that's my point. *shrugs* You're right, at least according to some definitions, , but I'm not gonna call Bible stories 'myths'. It's like how certain definitions of cult might apply to my religion; even if they do, I'm not gonna use the term on any major religion, because it seems like a put down. For me, there's a distinction between Bible stories and myths from other cultures. meh, alright. xp it;s all subjective anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:47 am
Chieftain Twilight Lateralus es Helica I'm a skeptic. (And I haven't had my coffee yet.) Pretty much all the stories of supernatural or mythological creatures I attach to people having some sort of memorable experience with a creature they didn't see clearly. When it came time to tell the tale, exaggerations were made and other people seeing something they didn't quite understand what it was or didn't get a good look perpetuated the myth. Let's look at the Beast of Gévaudan, for instance. It was reputed by people at the time to be a werewolf. Modern science has determined that more than likely it was actually a unique species of Asian Hyena (now extinct) that was trained to kill. So until the point when someone can actually prove that any such creatures do or did exist I'll remain skeptic and assume that people's imaginations are running with them. The mind can be a very fertile thing after all. (P.S. with the exceptions of such elf myths as they're actually small, my theory is that elves were created as a template for the human race's potential, aka we imagined something up that was exactly what we wanted to be.) this is the mentality that i like to see, because it means that you simply refuse to take anyone's word for it. smile i may be a believer where your a skeptic, but at the same time won't settle for belief, i want proof! i seek to find proof. i have some evidence of my theories, but nothing conclusive yet.... i'm very close though to proving the Tuatha to be real, but that won't realy make such big waves anyway. You're speaking of the Tuatha de Danann correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:38 pm
I honestly have my own pretty elaborate theories based on several other people's theories and research, and I feel pretty confident in it.
Such as unicorns. Unicorns didn't become the pretty and graceful horse-creature until the medival era. Even then it was claimed to be a wild, fierce, and violent creatures. That is what made the legendary maiden story so remarkable.
So what do we know about the legends of unicorns that were recounted before the medieval era? During the Grecian era, the unicorn was believed to originate in Africa, India, and Asia. The Greek writer Ctesias describes a creature that has a horn that is a cubit and a half long (that's like the length of a grown mans forearm and half of that length again). Pliny describes a creature called the monoceros that has the head of a stag, feet of an elephant, tail of the boar and a black horn that is 2 cubits in length in the middle of it's head.
The unicorn's horn has always been said to have properties that neutralize poison. To this day there is still a creature that is hunted in these regions for it's horn, also said to have poison curing properties... the Rhinoceros.
So how did the huge angry rhino get translated into the magical, mystical horse? Through fantastical stories, and ingenuity on the part of merchants. Noble folk are more enticed to buy remedies created by magical, mystical means coming from beautiful fantastical creatures.
As for dragons. I firmly believe there may have been remnant groupings of dinos left when the homo-sapiens arrived on the scene, and I still believe there could still be somewhere. Mostly because of some recent findings in the oceans of supposedly extinct prehistoric fish.
Even if humans have never seen a living dinosaur, there have always been fossils. Imagine coming upon one of those fossils when there was never a previous explanation for what you are seeing.
I seriously believe that dragons were an attempt at explanation of fossils found, and supplemented by exaggerated experiences had by individuals who encountered the dinosaur's smaller descendants.
As for fairies and the like. I honestly believe in spirits, and angels. People who encounter such things often describe a similar experience but give it a different name. I really think that the only difference between allot of spiritual, religious, and occult-ish phenomenons are the name we put to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:51 pm
Lateralus es Helica Chieftain Twilight Lateralus es Helica I'm a skeptic. (And I haven't had my coffee yet.) Pretty much all the stories of supernatural or mythological creatures I attach to people having some sort of memorable experience with a creature they didn't see clearly. When it came time to tell the tale, exaggerations were made and other people seeing something they didn't quite understand what it was or didn't get a good look perpetuated the myth. Let's look at the Beast of Gévaudan, for instance. It was reputed by people at the time to be a werewolf. Modern science has determined that more than likely it was actually a unique species of Asian Hyena (now extinct) that was trained to kill. So until the point when someone can actually prove that any such creatures do or did exist I'll remain skeptic and assume that people's imaginations are running with them. The mind can be a very fertile thing after all. (P.S. with the exceptions of such elf myths as they're actually small, my theory is that elves were created as a template for the human race's potential, aka we imagined something up that was exactly what we wanted to be.) this is the mentality that i like to see, because it means that you simply refuse to take anyone's word for it. smile i may be a believer where your a skeptic, but at the same time won't settle for belief, i want proof! i seek to find proof. i have some evidence of my theories, but nothing conclusive yet.... i'm very close though to proving the Tuatha to be real, but that won't realy make such big waves anyway. You're speaking of the Tuatha de Danann correct? yes. have i missed smething, or made a mistake?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:31 am
dragons fascinate me because ancient tales of them are so widespread, from China to Sweden to Africa.
how could that be, if there were no historical basis at all?
but it is all speculation, we have no dragon bones to study, just dinosaurs.
i was reading Borges' book Imaginary Beings, and was intrigued to find that the four great and powerful spiritual beings of China (one for each corner of the world, and for each element) were
the dragon (wise, not evil)
the unicorn
the tiger
all impressive creatures, no? but the fourth made me chuckle.
the tortoise!
who let him into the pantheon?
"today's UFC cage match will be between the dragon and the tortoise"...what?
poor little guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:18 am
chessiejo dragons fascinate me because ancient tales of them are so widespread, from China to Sweden to Africa. how could that be, if there were no historical basis at all? Probably because of dinosaur bones. Similarly, I read somewhere that elephant skulls inspired the cyclops legends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:44 am
Artto chessiejo dragons fascinate me because ancient tales of them are so widespread, from China to Sweden to Africa. how could that be, if there were no historical basis at all? Probably because of dinosaur bones. Similarly, I read somewhere that elephant skulls inspired the cyclops legends. I've heard that, but there's a problem with that theory. The ancient greeks spent a LOT of time dealing with bones and corpses. Not only were they a warrior culture in large part, but animal sacrifices were very common. Unlike modern people, EVERYONE back then knew where all the bones were and how they looked, especially on things like cows and goats and other herbavores with large, central nasal cavities and eyes on the side of the head. Why would a people who saw herbivore bones once a week or month or what have you suddenly flip s**t on seeing a slightly larger one and make such a wild assumption? And I'm sure they'd had dealings with elephants in the past. It doesn't add up. They weren't idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
