GameBanshee Forums

This is what I was afraid of. People most certainly do make things up without any basis in fact. Can you say ‘alien abduction’? Or how about Lemuria or Atlantis. Just because a creature enters popular literature, does not mean we need to give the culture that gave birth to it the benefit of doubt.

People are inherently superstitious and will seek to explain all manner of phenomenon with the extra-natural because without the knowledge to know better, it is the easiest explanation. A kind of blind Occam if you will.

Did you know that the UFOs you see every night are actually dragons out flying in the night.

Originally posted by Locke Da'averan


i don't think gods ever existed, they're just something the people in power created to have the people something to worship and have faith, plus they were able to say stuff like: "god spoke to me last night, he/she said, you must raise taxes, kill the unfaithful servants and have your way with all the young and attractive women in your kingdom (Egypt 6000 years ago)

See you're wrong there.
I'm your proof.
I AM GOD

Although seriously you are correct. Its very true.

Re: modern man as more "advanced" than previous cultures:
Personally, I fail to see why panteistic or polyteistic religions should be viewed as more "primitive" than the modern commonly occuring monoteistic religions. Also, I don't think modern man is more rational, like Waverly points out, what about alien abductions, conspiracy theories and other explanations the modern human mind can believe in although there's not a firm "factual" foundation for those phenomena?

Like some of you have pointed out, fossiles of new species are found quite often, and it also happens from time to time that unknown living species are discovered, like the anthelope in the Asian part of former Soviet Union some years back. Most new species discovered are insects I think, but certainly there is still space for new discoveries of both land living and marine creatues. However, when people actually make great efforts to localise and identify a creature such as the Loch Ness monster, I think by now they should have found such a large creature, or at least traces of it, if it was there.

Re: Vampires What do you think about the Porphyria idea?

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
However, I have been known to toy with the idea that Bigfoot and Sasquatch are simply undiscovered descendants of the robust Australopithecines that roamed Africa and Asia about 5 million years ago! Never mind that there is no fossil evidence to support this idea....

Care to elaborate that idea, Gwally?

Originally posted by C Elegans
Personally, I fail to see why panteistic or polyteistic religions should be viewed as more "primitive" than the modern commonly occuring monoteistic religions. Also, I don't think modern man is more rational, like Waverly points out, what about alien abductions, conspiracy theories and other explanations the modern human mind can believe in although there's not a firm "factual" foundation for those phenomena?

Aye, but what's to say alien abductions don't happen? Or that all conspiracy theories are false?

If I wished, I could elaborate on a conspiracy theory me and my friends figured out for which you would have no way of proving it false. And of course, it being a conspiracy, there would be too many cover-ups for me to be able to prove it true.

Oh, I can assure you that none of my loyal subjects on Saturn have ever abducted anyone from Earth as we have yet to find any intelligent life worth abducting.

Re: Vampires… The short answer is that porphyria was an interesting idea, but does not hold up to scrutiny. Ingesting blood does nothing to alleviate the symptoms nor does it result in the craving to do so.

Vampirism has more to do with the misunderstanding of the natural stages of decomposition for the human body and the age old fear of death.

More theories, Miss Saturn? Do tell

Maharlika writes:
As to India's religious epic, it's Hindu belief, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Hindus have a "holy trinity" of some sort: Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna?

Yes, and no. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion, but by its very nature, capable of assuming other forms--including a kind of pantheistic monotheism. A particular group of Hindus regard Krishna as the god-behind-all-gods, the creator-behind-all-creation, and the dancer-and-the-danced.

Curiously, he is still constrained by the laws he has set himself in motion, and to achieve the objective of a new age, it was necessary in the Mahabharata for one group of super-heroes (in effect) to destroy another, otherwise the world would have returned to absolute chaos. Krishna helps the one group win, but in the process they discover that they must give up everything that set them apart from their supposedly bad enemies. They dishonor themselves. They use trickery and deception. They lie, and ambush single enemies. The point Krishna is trying to make, is that in the final analysis, all of these things, however worthy, are less important than the will of God--hence, my reference to the story of Job, which has by some scholars been called an Oriental import into the bible.

Originally posted by Waverly
Re: Vampires… The short answer is that porphyria was an interesting idea, but does not hold up to scrutiny. Ingesting blood does nothing to alleviate the symptoms nor does it result in the craving to do so.

Vampirism has more to do with the misunderstanding of the natural stages of decomposition for the human body and the age old fear of death.

This reminds me of an episode of CSI, but since I don't remember enough about it, I won't bother commenting any more than this.

More theories, Miss Saturn? Do tell

I don't dare explain the conspiracy theory. If I do, then They might here. If They heard, then it would make Them mad. And they would send That, This, These, Those, and It after me to keep me from telling anyone about Them!

Ack! Oh, no! I've said too much already!

*runs and hides before the They can find her*

Originally posted by Waverly
People most certainly do make things up without any basis in fact. Can you say ‘alien abduction’?

However, there is a factual basis to the modern "UFO" sightings. While people are more than likely inventing tales of abduction, communication with alien beings, etc. etc., there is no doubt that weird things are seen in the sky on occasion. These sightings didn't just appear out of nowhere as fictional tales. They were based on lights really being in the sky, electrical equipment in the area going haywire, etc. These events actually occurred, providing a factual basis for further elaboration and fictionalization. Weird things really were seen, and equipment really did malfunction, and a few people just took it from there.

Or how about Lemuria or Atlantis.

How do we know for certain that those places never existed? I'm not saying that Atlantis was some super-high-tech utopian marvel society that got wasted by some ancient nuclear blast I'm saying maybe there really was an ancient city, with a very advanced civilization, that was destroyed in some natural cataclysm and sank under water. Again -- a legend-ized "history" with a potentially solid basis in truth. As a matter of scientific fact, "under the water" is now swiftly becoming the most popular area for archaeological research, and yes, there have been many structures and even entire cities discovered beneath the waves in recent years. Like I said before -- we haven't unearthed everything yet. There is so much in this world that hasn't been found. We don't know it all.


In general: Just to clarify my earlier statement about modern arrogance -- I never said modern society IS less ignorant than our ancestors; I said we want to THINK we are.

@Waverly: I know virtually knowing about the Porphyria idea, other than that people with this rare disease might have symptoms that could be interpreted as coinciding with the vampire or werewolf concept, ie shun daylight, grow excessive hair. I don't even remember who presented the idea. What is your take at the vampire myth?

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

Aye, but what's to say alien abductions don't happen? Or that all conspiracy theories are false?

If I wished, I could elaborate on a conspiracy theory me and my friends figured out for which you would have no way of proving it false. And of course, it being a conspiracy, there would be too many cover-ups for me to be able to prove it tD

Alien abduction might happen, I couldn't say even if I don't belive it. But some people believe in it without having seen any factual evidence directly or indirectly. And so far, the people I've heard about who claim to have been abducted though, have not succeded in demonstrating objectively that it in fact occured. That doesn't rule out that it did occur or that it might not have happened to other people who, obviously, are not here to tell the story, but gee - people may also have been eaten by a violet, giant meat-eating plant who comes and goes mysteriously and without leavning any traces Anything might be possible, but that's not the same as it actually occuring.

Ah, but thinking out a theory that can't be falsified is simple - there is simply no way of proving that something does not exist. If I were to say I had a theory that pink unicorns exist, nobody can prove me wrong, they might exist in corners of the universe where we can't look. That's why a "scientific" theory as opposed to other theories, has to be falsifiable.

Bah i think we all know the food network runs the government, and that iron chef is a cover for their army!

Originally posted by C Elegans


But the concept of dragon looks quite different in different cultures, the Chinese dragon is quite different from the European both in behaviour and looks.

Who says the creatures have to be identical? Aren't there different kinds of monkeys, big cats, serpents, etc. etc. etc.?.......

Of course I'm not saying the whole world had one big idea that said THIS IS A DRAGON I'm saying, the dragon in Europe probably had some kind of factual basis, and the dragon in Asia probably had some kind of factual basis. Different creatures?...They don't have to be the same.

CSI!?! Don’t get me started on the psuedo-scientific brain-melter. My favorite was the episode (the only one I have seen in entirety) where they poured plaster into a knife wound to get a mold of the knife. Very well and good except that flesh has plastic properties people, the wound would never be the shape of the knife.

SS: Maybe ‘they’ are just trying to tell you your skirt has gone missing again. Running is the worst thing you can do in that situation.

CE: Porphyria is an example of casual causation. No one has pointed to a historical vampire (and a few exist) and said. “this person was afflicted with porphyria.” Some of the symptoms are reminiscent of vampirism, but the idea that a person such afflicted would crave blood or be comforted by it is nonsense. And it is blood, after all, that defines the vampire myth. And what of the odd hair growth and sores that are symptomatic of porphyria? Wouldn’t you expect them to enter into the myth if it was one and the same as the disease?

http://www.johnbowman.net/paper/vampire.php look about half way down.

Originally posted by Waverly
CSI!?! Don’t get me started on the psuedo-scientific brain-melter. My favorite was the episode (the only one I have seen in entirety) where they poured plaster into a knife wound to get a mold of the knife. Very well and good except that flesh has plastic properties people, the wound would never be the shape of the knife.

I've only seen the show a few times, and I'm sure it's dramatized, but as to its scientific accuracy, I can't say. I do remember a king of France being referred to as a victim of whatever disease it was. I do not know if the disease was porphyria(sp?) or not. What I do remember is that the disease caused a lack of production of something in the blood. The lady on the show who suffered from this disease would go out at night with her dog and kill someone then take the organs of that person that contain the most blood. She would then put the organs in a...uh...some type of thing that grinds stuff up until it's basically liquid, then drink it to provide her with whatever it was the disease caused her to lack. That's about all I remember from the episode.

As to the knife thing, while flesh does have 'plastic properties,' if the knife was still in the wound when rigor mortis(?) set in, would the body not hold its shape? Grant it, if this were the case, then it would seem likely that they would not have needed a mold of the knife, but since I didn't see the episode, I don't know anything about what happened on the show. If my speculation is wrong, then fine.

SS: Maybe ‘they’ are just trying to tell you your skirt has gone missing again. Running is the worst thing you can do in that situation.

You don't know how scary They can be, though.

Good link, Waverly, it explains the problems with Porphyria quite well, I had no idea the disease was so rare. Rabies, well, it's of course a possibility.

@SS and Wave: What is CSI?

Originally posted by Der-draigen

Of course I'm not saying the whole world had one big idea that said THIS IS A DRAGON I'm saying, the dragon in Europe probably had some kind of factual basis, and the dragon in Asia probably had some kind of factual basis. Different creatures?...They don't have to be the same.

I have no idea how the dragon concept may have developed either is China or in Europe. And as somebody else pointed out, the idea might have been transferred to Europe via trading contacts with Asia. The point I wanted to make however was that just because a concept exists in several cultures, it may not necessarily be more connected to a observable reality. My guess is that most mythic creatures like dragons or unicorns have a factual basis in so much as there were observations that were interpreted in a certain way, but I don't think any creatures representing those interpretations existed in reality, no. Some people think that large snakes, varans, or other reptiles might have been the root of the dragon myth, other people think findings of large bones etc was interpreted in this fashion. I'm sure other people here can expand much more than I can on the dragon myth. This is not to say I don't wish dragons existed in the mythical form, I just don't believe it

Der-draigen: Pliny’s Atlantis is simply not where the historian tells us where it is. I don’t think looking elsewhere at the multitude of sunken cities that do indeed exist and speculating that they may be Atlantis anyway exhibits academic integrity.

Alien abduction should leave behind quantifiable physical evidence. Whether you bring back unquestionable signs of invasive techniques or it is the mere fact that you are proven not to be on terra firma for a time, the reality that this objective evidence has not shown itself precludes any abduction theories at this time.

Originally posted by C Elegans
@SS and Wave: What is CSI?

CSI is a show on one of the networks(I think) in the US. It's "Crime Scene Investigators." My mom really likes the show and insists on taping it if she is unable to watch it.

Of course I'm not saying the whole world had one big idea that said THIS IS A DRAGON I'm saying, the dragon in Europe probably had some kind of factual basis, and the dragon in Asia probably had some kind of factual basis. Different creatures?...They don't have to be the same.

But I would think, with all the fossil examination going on now, that at least a single skeleton representative of some branch of the dragon family would have come to light, already. Nothing has appeared.

And dragons don't occur in European literature as creatures until after trade routes had been established with China. The first really heavy mention of dragons were in a series of pseudo-Chinese fairy tales crafted by French authors in the 18th century, when the craze for Chinese things among the aristocracy and upper middle class was at its height in that nation. Thus, the dragons of Europe were an import, like the djinni of Arabian folklore.

Let's remember, too, that simply because curious creatures were found repeatedly in ancient bestiaries does not mean they were any more real than if they'd been quoted in one. There was a habit up until relatively recently in world literature--really, unil the Rennaisance--of preparing books that quoted extensively from the works of predecessors without giving sources. This was especially true during the Middle Ages. If some ancient Roman source mentioned the people of Hyperborea who had necks swiveled permanantly so they faced the rear, and another tribe who had a separate face in their stomachs (and yes, that statement does exist), why then, all the medieval bestiaries would quote this--and that wouldn't make the statement any more factual for all the repetition.

This isn't to say that unicorns, or people with faces pointing backwards, never existed. But merely because a bunch of books once quoted each other and the same, single ancient Roman or Greek reference, doesn't make it so. By that same token, the absence of evidence doesn't mean such creatures never existed. But a sound case for their existence really requires more than just a hope.

Originally posted by fable
And dragons don't occur in European literature as creatures until after trade routes had been established with China. The first really heavy mention of dragons were in a series of pseudo-Chinese fairy tales crafted by French authors in the 18th century...

I’m sure St. George would beg to differ with you. His story appears in Jacobus de Voragine’s accounting of the lives of saints in 1275, but the account also appears less formally in several different languages as early as the 5th century (St. George died in 303).

Earlier still, dragons appeared in Greek mythology as drakron. Both Jason and Hercules encounter them.

And yet earlier, the bible makes reference to dragons throughout the old testament and in revelations. Satan is able to take this form, and it is also the description of leviathan, the blind dragon Samael, and many lesser dragons.

You speak with a fair amount of authority, Fable. You should be more careful not to mislead people with off the cuff, but wholly incorrect statements.

Re: Fossil Evidence - Adrienne Mayor's recent book The First Fossil Hunters documents several cases of fossil evidence being misattributed to mythical creatures. A fossil wooly rhinoceros skull is found linked to dragon legends and ceratopian fossils found in the Gobi attributed to griffins, for example.

Originally posted by Waverly
Der-draigen: Pliny’s Atlantis is simply not where the historian tells us where it is. I don’t think looking elsewhere at the multitude of sunken cities that do indeed exist and speculating that they may be Atlantis anyway exhibits academic integrity.

1.) So because the location is off, it must never have existed at all I believe (and anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this ) that the reason why it took so long to find the Titanic was partially because its location had been inaccurately reported. I don't think it matters that remains are not in a reported location. I never said every single thing ever written about Atlantis was true; or even that that legendary city really did exist. All I ever said was, it is very possible that the legend has some basis in a factual place. Wherever it may have been.

2.) I also never said that any of the recently-discovered sunken cities should be assumed to be Atlantis. I said: Because we can look at all the recent discoveries of previously unknown structures and cities that now lie under water, we can also say that there are many other structures and cities under water that have not yet been found.

I'm not arguing for the existence of Atlantis; all I'm saying is that the stories may have some basis in fact, however loose that basis may be; and, if so, there may very well be archaeological evidence that has not yet been discovered.

Alien abduction should leave behind quantifiable physical evidence. Whether you bring back unquestionable signs of invasive techniques or it is the mere fact that you are proven not to be on terra firma for a time, the reality that this objective evidence has not shown itself precludes any abduction theories at this time.

I quite agree. I never argued for the reality of alien abduction as such, either. Again, all I said about this was, people can have very real experiences and exaggerate, misunderstand, or outright fictionalize them. My point is that the stories have some basis, however loose, in some real event.

Originally posted by fable:But I would think, with all the fossil examination going on now, that at least a single skeleton representative of some branch of the dragon family would have come to light, already. Nothing has appeared.

So that must mean nothing ever will

Allow me to remind everyone of the Nebuchadnezzar "surprise" in the mid-20th century. Until that time, people thought that Nebuchadnezzar, and Babylon in general, were just myths touted by the Bible and reported by Josephus in much the same manner as Pliny had reported Atlantis However, in 1956 archaeology unearthed the Babylonian Chronicles, telling the world that Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar were no made-up tales.

I suppose people prior to this discovery also said, "If Nebucahdnezzar really existed, don't you think they would have turned up some evidence by now?"

Consider other 20th-century discoveries such as the Nag Hammadi library, and more famously, the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, as I said before, to very recent fossil discoveries of previously unknown species. (As a side note -- Just because a creature would leave a huge fossil behind, doesn't automatically mean we'd have found the huge fossil by now, does it?......)

If the Titanic hadn't been found in the 1980's, people a few hundred years from now would probably be saying it never really existed, either. That it was just a made-up morality tale or something.

As above, with the alien abduction issue: I'm not saying dragons ever existed in the form in which we see them in fairy-tale books, etc. I'm saying there may have been some creature at some point in time which inspired an exaggeration into the dragon stories we now know.

I am not arguing for the existence of dragons or of Atlantis, or anything else, based upon speculation and the lack of evidence to the contrary. Lack of evidence is not evidence. All I'm trying to say is this: It's a big world, and lots of things are still buried, lots of things have yet to be found. And to say that we've already found it all, and that we know it all, and that there's nothing left to discover because we super-high-tech modern folks have already discovered everything about the world -- well, like I also said before, that is plain old-fashioned arrogance.

Want to talk science and academic integrity? I think science and academia should be open to the possibility that they don't know everything yet. When science closes itself off to the possibility of new discoveries....well, you get what happened to Galileo and folks like him

That's all I'm saying.