Dragons

>>2627182
Large, dinosaur-era reptiles/birds surviving into the modern(ish) era isn't completely out of the question. Look at the elephant bird, saltwater crocodile, etc.

However, there is no hard evidence for dragons, at least not yet.

We would have found a shred of evidence by now

>>2627182
The word "dinosaur" was coined in the 19th century AD.

Before that, people called such creatures serpents, flying serpents, dragons, behemoths, leviathans, etc.

Legend of dragons has to have started from people stumbling upon dinosaur fossils...

>>2627284
Do dinosaur bones count? Do semi-historical accounts like St. George, and arguably St. Patrick (said to have driven serpents out of Ireland) count?

Out of the question

>>2627441

Very bad post anon

>>2627182
Dragons are a very simple idea. Just combine everything that scares people. You don't need to be very imaginative to dream them up.

"What if a crocodile was a lot bigger and could fly, wouldn't that be scary as fuck?"

>>2627182
a thread died for this

>>2627182
Phylogenetically impossible, unless you mean wyverns. No descendant of amniotes has 6 limbs.

>>2628984
Well, the pic in the OP is a dragon with 2 legs and 2 wings. But you're saying those ones could have existed, right? Just really, really improbable?

All the classical features of dragons, and certainly their fiery breath, suggest that the only way they'd be able to exist is if they were overtly magical/imbued with some supernatural power.

So, do you think THAT exists? Because if the answer is yes, then dragons could exist. If you're looking for dragons to exist purely within the boundaries of the natural sciences, the answer is no.

Of course they were real. What are you a fucking retard hoaxer?

People believe that talking snakes and unicorns existed, why not dragons?

>>2627434
This.

Could you imagine being an ancient and stumbling on a T-rex skelly?