On Karl Wieland's idiot site, I came across this short article entitled, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dinosaur? where Don Batton, the one who wrote the article, gave out some distorted information on Chinese dragons, which never in fact looked like dinosaurs at all, while at the same time give out untruthful claims about dinosaurs being dragons people saw alive in ancient times.
First he claims that the Chinese-English Dictionary (published in China in 1979) gave the meanings behind 'dragon' as 'dinosaur' and falsely claims that the dictionary recognized the dragon to be real. If so, then where are their remains? Where are all the 'dragon' bones found alongside of tigers and humans in China? If the answer's 'nowhere', you're right! 'Dragon' and tiger bones together are nowhere to be found in both historical and prehistorical records!
He then says that the Chinese word for dinosaur, which is konglung, means "mighty dragon" in a paleontology sense. In a way, dragons are dinosaurs per se'. But what inspired the Chinese people is not what Batton falsely asserts. Fossil remains of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals (mostly early Cenozoic Mammals) and live sightings of crocodiles and snakes are the true inspirations behind dragon legends, especially in China. Fictional live sightings of dinosaurs, Mesozoic sea monsters, and pterosaurs are not.
However, when he said,
"….-remember that the English word 'dinosaur' was not invented until 1841 [It's 1842, not 1841! They all have it one year off on the year Richard Owen coined the phrase 'dinosaur' or Dinosauria meaning "fearfully great lizards"]."
..he falsely implies that dinosaurs and dragons are one and the same while they are in fact not.
He then gives out some old Chinese sayings that involves tigers and dragons such as, 'like a coiling dragon and crouching tiger (translated in Chinese as Lo'ng Teng Hu Yo)' meaning "a forbidding strategic point". A variation on this saying inspired the title of the recent award-winning Chinese movie, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (or Wo Hu Cang Lo'ng) meaning "a benign looking place with powerful hidden forces". 'Dragon's pool and tiger's den (translated in Chinese as Lo'ng Tan Hu Hsueh)' meaning "a dangerous place". 'Dragons rising and tigers leaping' (translated in Chinese as Lo'ng Teng Hu Yo) meaning "a scene of bustling activity."
Batton then states,
"Furthermore, of the twelve symbols used in the Chinese lunar calendar cycle, eleven are real animals (pig, rat, rabbit, tiger, etc.), suggesting that the remaining one, the dragon, is equally real."
Circular reasoning is what Batton displaying here, falsely implying that since all of the 11 animals in the Chinese Zodiac are real, then the dragon must be real too, or so he assumes. The truth of the matter is that putting dragons alongside real animals don't make them any more real than putting unicorns, elves, fairies, and gnomes alongside deer, rabbits, and other real types of forest animals. Unfortunately, creationists like Batton don't know better.
With these Chinese sayings and symbols involving dragons and tigers, Batton uses them to his advantage and came up with this blatant falsehood,
"The above evidence is consistent with identifying dinosaurs with the dragons of Chinese history as real animals that have lived not too long ago. This contradicts the whole idea of an 'age of dinosaurs' millions of years before people existed, and further supports the Biblical account of the real history of the world."
It would indeed contradict the idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago before man IF we find evidence of dinosaurs and human remains mixed together in the fossil record as well as finding tombs of humans and their dinosaur companions buried together and valid artifacts depicting them that do not have the letters H-O-A-X written all over it. But none are found! Especially in China. So, why should it be consistent then when this is nothing more than the likes of Battan fabricating dragon legends to make it as if they are what they think they are while in reality they're not? Batton never gets it in his head that the word 'dragon' comes from the Latin word drakon meaning 'snake' or 'serpent.' The dragons of China resembled coiling twisting snakes with four limbs and wolf like heads, dear like antlers and carp scales, and the ability to control the weather and change into a different forms. Dinosaurs could do no such thing and have no such features on them at all.
And this is Shantungosaurus, a Hadrosaur that lived 80 million years ago.
Now, does the dragon, in the first link, looks exactly like the dinosaur in the second link? I don't think so! There is not one dinosaur alive and extinct that bore a body that resembled snakes and/or lizards. They have bodies and anatomy like birds and mammals, instead. The Chinese dragon may have originated from early sightings of not live non-avian dinosaurs, but snakes, fish and crocodiles. Especially sightings of an huge ancient giant crocodile Crocodilus Porosis this crocodile senses the coming rains in the most accurate way thus gave the people the idea of dragons controlling the weather. When one looks at the true history of the Chinese dragon, that person, especially you, can bet with certainty that the real story of the Chinese dragon has zero to do with dinosaurs, despite what Batton idiotically assumes.