Not too long ago, a Pachycephalosaurid, was unearthed and taken to a children's museum where Paleontologist, Robert Bakker shows the skull of that particular dinosaur to a group of visiting children. When the children saw the skull, they instantly pointed out that it looks exactly like a head of a dragon. This lead Bob Bakker to name the dinosaur Dracorex Hogwartsia, “The Dragon King of Hogwarts” now known to be a juvenile version of Pachycephalosaurus according to this paper published by Paleontologists Jack Horner and Mark Goodwin who argued that Dracorex and Stygimoloch are nothing more than younger versions of Pachycephalosaurus that grew huge horns on their heads during their hatchling days, only to shrink back into blunt studs by the time they reached adulthood. In this case, another blow to the creationists' fractured fairy tale story of dragons and dinosaurs being one and the same creatures humans saw alive thousands of years ago have just been made. But that doesn't stop creationists from maintaining their denial, idiocy, and falsehood about dinosaurs being dragons people saw alive thousands of years ago.
The name “Hogwartsia” pays homage to Hogwarts School of Wizardly and Witchcraft, the school Harry Potter goes to in JK Rowling's magnificent Harry Potter series. When it comes to conclusions like these, Creationists, like the ones at Creation Ministries International would use this discovery to their advantage, just like they did with the Tyrannosaurid soft-tissue claim. Although bones and fossils of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals did inspire ancient dragon and monster legends, creationists still lies continuously by claiming that the dragon and monster legends were nothing more than [sic] "reports" of live dinosaur sightings made all over the world by ancient people. Here in this idiot article from CMI dated to January 12, Creationist, Richard Fangrad wrote and published Dracorex— the dinosaur that looks like a dragon, where he claims that this confirms their faulty notion of dinosaurs being the dragons people saw fought and killed in ancient legends told worldwide.
Creationists, in reality, fabricated the stories to make them look as if they are "reports of live dinosaur sightings" in an effort to deceive the public into thinking they're all historical facts, while they're not. If these stories are facts, then Odin, Zeus, Osiris, mermaids, unicorns, gnomes, elves, fairies, leprechauns, and other creatures and deities of myth are facts, too. But these monsters and gods are all characters of mythology, not real life. Mythology, cloaked as real events, is exactly what young earth creationism teaches.
The first part of the article begins,
"For many years creationists have been making connections between dinosaurs and dragons. However, dragons are often portrayed as having fanciful features like wings, bizarre horns and claws, and the ability to breathe fire."
The same way creationists have falsely portrayed dinosaurs and their contemporaries as when it comes to referring them to such monsters with fanciful features like wings, bizarre horns and claws, and the ability to breathe fire (Some creationists claim that some dinosaurs like Parasaurolophus had the ability to breathe fire. Of course this comical claim is unfounded and are only make-believe.).
Fangrad then introduce the reader to Dracorex Hogwartsia and says,
"It’s more eye-catching than most dinosaurs because it’s what most people imagine dragons looking like. Yet this is a real animal!"
Not necessary. Despite having a dragon-like head, Dracorex is anything but a dragon! Especially when this baby Pachycephalosaurus completely lack a flexible serpent-like body, bat wings, sharp claws on its 4 limbs, women's genitals, forked tongue and tail, impenetrable scales, and the ability to breathe fire and poisoned gas. Formally named Dracorex was simply a 2 legged plant-eating baby Pachycephalosaurus who lived during the Cretaceous Period, about 66 million years ago. Fangrad then went on to explain how the dinosaur was found as well as how it got its name.
Note the deception in the gray box that's located on the right side of the article,
"Dragons are often portrayed as having fanciful features like wings, bizarre horns and claws. In the case of Dracorex, it’s only a small stretch of the imagination to add wings; the rest of its body is already very much like a western dragon."
It doesn't since it has no sharp claws, no spiked tail, no impenetrable scales and no serpentine body. Note the animated example shown above the paragraph of how creationists would deliberately distort the appearance of dinosaurs to make them as if dinosaurs are dragons while they really are in fact far from it. One minute it's a dinosaur skeleton, the next minute a silhouette of a Hollywood dragon caricature suddenly appears behind the skeleton— one of the best example of pure indoctrination made to get more people to make their pocketbooks grow while ignoring the skeleton being completely void of wing bones, an arrow-tail tip, and other features found on an actual dragon. The rest of the paragraph claims,
"Perhaps the reason why dragons are so popular in today’s mass media is because people once walked with dinosaurs like Dracorex!"
Wrong! The actual reason why dragons were so popular in the ancient world as well as today's mass media is because of its symbolism and the high status in association with royalty, magic, myth, folklore, and religion. The dragon is most often times used symbolically in many ways depending on whether one live in Europe or in China.
People never walked with dinosaurs other than birds. Otherwise we would have seen traces of dinosaur and human remains together in ancient tombs, in ruins of cities, villages, and other forms of human dwellings including bridals, saddles, wagons, dinosaur skins and bones made into jewelry, tools, houses and clothing. But none are found.
The Western dragon is regarded as a symbol of evil and is often associated with the Devil. They are portrayed as snake or lizard-like monsters with either serpentine bodies or mammalian feline bodies, fiery and/or poison gas or breath, feline-like heads, pointed ears, multiple heads in some cases, 4, 2, or no limbs, coiling tail, bird or bat wings with multiple bony rods supporting a large skin membrane, teats or women's breasts, and impenetrable scales with weak points underneath their wings or their bellies. They are known to guard large amounts of gold and is known to mainly devour maidens.
The Eastern Dragon, on the other hand, is regarded as a symbol of good fortune and prosperity and serve as a companion and protector for the gods. They are known to have coiling bodies, carp scales, antlers, wolf-like heads, 4 limbs, frilly skin fibers and have the tenancy to create storms and change into any form. Highly revered, these powerful monsters were worshiped by the people who lived in the Eastern areas of Asia, including China.
Fangrad then went on to claim,
"It is very possible, even highly likely, that many of the dragon legends that are known in some cultures are the [sic] distorted memories of when people lived with dinosaurs. However, in the case of Dracorex it seems that dragon legends may not have been greatly distorted from the real thing. Normally, if historical experiences are not written down, but passed orally from generation to generation, errors creep in. The pattern over time is that experience becomes memory, memory becomes legend, and legend becomes myth."
See the deception here? This is one of the many lies creationists tells to the people by fabricating the dragon legends and say that dragon legends are nothing more than oral reports of dinosaur sightings that have became distorted over the years, make them as if it's all true, and then, have their gullible followers take their word blindly, never to know that both fossil, historical, and archaeological records has no traces of humans and dinosaurs living in and around each other at the same time.
Next, Fangrad tries to prove his point by giving out an example of how The Epic of Gilgamesh is similar to the story of Noah's Flood and gives out what he and all other creationists think who really wrote the Genesis account of the Flood,
"The Gilgamesh epic is a great example of this. The tablets on which the story is written date to about 650BC. Noah’s Flood took place about 1700 years before that time. Although there are strong similarities between it and the biblical record, over that vast amount of time the details of the Flood were significantly distorted. On the other hand, the biblical record of the Flood was likely written by those who experienced it first hand—Noah’s family. Later, these written accounts were passed to Moses, who, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, assembled them and wrote the remainder of Genesis."
See here to learn the true history of when the Epic was first written in. For a long time, creationists have claimed that the first parts of Genesis 1-11 was written by Shem, one of the sons of Noah who survived the Flood along with his family. The story was then handed down to Moses, who put it in with the rest of the Book of Genesis he wrote years later. The claim is unfounded and entirely made up. No evidence of such claim has ever been found.
In the last part of the article, Fangrad deals with the creationists' view of “kinds” by first claiming that the estimate number of dinosaurs according to “evolutionists” are,
“…based on evolutionary assumptions about (among other factors) the ‘incompleteness of the fossil record’ and dinosaur diversity during the various stages of the so-called ‘age of dinosaurs’, which supposedly lasted for about 180 million years.”
The incompleteness of the fossil record and the 160 million year (actually) dinosaur diversity is anything but “evolutionary assumptions”.
According to Kenneth Fair, said in response to a creationist's claim (Source here),
“The fossil record is incomplete not because evolution is true, but because we understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization; it takes a rare set of circumstances for an organism to be fossilized. What the answer is saying is that evolutionary biology does not require a complete and perfect fossil record, and in fact we do not expect to see such a record. It is a popular misconception that evolutionary theory is based solely, or even primarily, on the fossil record. Fossils are but one line of evidence supporting evolution; evidence for evolution also includes genetic comparisons, the nested heirarchy of shared characteristics, and immunological and embyrological evidence.”
Fangrad then went on to say,
“Without the [sic] evolutionary spin, the number of ‘branches’ on the family tree of dinosaurs drops dramatically, to perhaps around 50 different created kinds. Diversity within a kind can be very large within some groups like the Pachycephalosauria. Another group of animals with a large amount of variation is the (more familiar) dog kind. The ‘change within a kind’ that scientists observe, and which is an important part of the creation model, has nothing to do with [sic] ‘molecules-to-man’ evolution.”
He is flat out lying. The claim about only 50 kinds of dinosaurs tripe is nothing but a flawed loophole creationists made up in an attempt to deal with the problems associating with fitting worldwide mass diversities of animals, past and present, into a small 450×75x45 boat, including over 600 different types of dinosaurs and still growing!
The change within each kind (or speciation) does have to do with evolution (descent with modification). Even creationists themselves teach evolution— instant, rapid evolution. Yet, they turn around and deny teaching this when they teach that evolution is false, turn around, and contradict this by claiming that God creating only basic creatures that developed into a mass varieties of creatures occurring over a short period of time, only to be destroy in the Flood except for the basics Noah only took into the ark to be salvaged from the Flood. Then when the Flood ended, the basic animals left the ark to start all over and evolve rapidly into the mass varieties of animals we see today. When they teach this, they are violating the passage of Genesis 6:19-20 in which God tells Noah to bring up into the ark animals of <strong>all kinds</strong>, not just the basics. Plus, this is another loophole they find when trying to deal with the issue of how did Noah put every animal in their world into the ark like God told him to without busting the boat apart.
In the end, Fangrad claims,
“Dracorex is yet another example of variation within a kind. The remarkable features observed in this variety of dinosaur make the link between dragon legends and real dinosaurs even more solid.”
Only when the image is distorted and the stories fabricated does the link deceivingly seem more solid in the eyes of a creationist. But once the truth is known about how creationists really handle dinosaurs, including fabricating dragon and monster legends and forging dinosaurs into false caricatures of dragons and vice versa to order make it as if they are historical facts and monsters instead of what they really are in reality, the so-called solid link - the weakest link in disguise - will just simply snap off and crumble away.