13:27, Wed 22 May
Faith is intellectually lazy.

And yet you have faith in science, even with all of it's flaws, holes, unknowns and conflicting theories...
13:30, Wed 22 May
Job 40:15-24

You see, to me that doesn't say dinosaur, it says large beast.

Funny how things can be interpreted differently.
There's too much opinion and not enough fact.
13:34, Wed 22 May
That's your interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's translation of someone else's description. The original Hebrew description is not applicable to any living creature.

And what is a dinosaur if not a large beast?
13:34, Wed 22 May
And Job 41:1-2,7,12-32;

"Flames stream from its mouth,sparks of fire shoot out."

Sounds more like a dragon than a dinosaur to me.
There's too much opinion and not enough fact.
13:43, Wed 22 May
QBBC2
That's your interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's translation of someone else's description. The original Hebrew description is not applicable to any living creature.

And what is a dinosaur if not a large beast?

Well, all dinosaurs were reptiles.

And all large beasts were/are not reptiles.

Was it possible that your ancient contact saw some other animal, like an elephant or another mammal perhaps? Y'know, large but un-dino like?
There's too much opinion and not enough fact.
13:45, Wed 22 May
Yep. And dragons appear in all cultures all across the world, pre-dating the Bible. Some scholars believe that the myths were a result of the discovery of dinosaur bones, fossilised imprints of pterodactyl wings and the like. They were huge and terrifying creatures that various cultures, not just religions, imbued with capabilities such as fire breathing - it's what humans do - find some evidence and then make the rest up and other humans believe it until a better theory comes along.
13:47, Wed 22 May
QBBC2
...
It is incumbent on science to prove or disprove myths - that's kind of the point of science, to explain how and why - and science does fit evidence to prove a theory.

This is not correct. Science 'disproves' theories, not proves them. It's a pretty fundamental truism that underpins science, and is what separates science from religion or magic or alchemy.

There is no 'faith' in science. There is only mathematics, and if you think that mathematics requires 'faith' in the same way that belief in Extraterrestrials or God requires 'faith' then you are mistaken.

Maths neither proves nor disproves. It simply 'is'. In fact, if you wanted a revelation as to the true nature of God, I would give you Mathematics with a capital M. If there is a God, then she is a mathematician.
H Bomb on DES "I'm actually ashamed to support the same club as you"
13:54, Wed 22 May
Well, all dinosaurs were reptiles.

And all large beasts were/are not reptiles.

Was it possible that your ancient contact saw some other animal, like an elephant or another mammal perhaps? Y'know, large but un-dino like?

Did the ancients know what reptiles were? I'm not sure they had such a classification system tbh. Sea creatures were sea creatures, land creatures were land creatures. We have to work with their understanding, not ours.

Like I said, the original Hebrew description rules out it being an elephant or other mammal. Elephants don't have huge tails the size of a tree - "He moves his tail like a cedar". An elephant tail is more like a switch or twig. Can you think of a mammal with a tail like a cedar?
14:00, Wed 22 May
That doesn't mean the animal had a tail the same size and shape as a cedar tree though, does it?

Isn't it a description of how it's tail moved?

And how do we know that a cedar tree in ancient times is the same as a cedar tree now? Or even the same tree at all?

So, let me just get you straight, you believe there were fire breathing animals on Earth at the same time as humans?
There's too much opinion and not enough fact.
14:02, Wed 22 May
😂😂 im so glad you've joined in, im off to a meeting now
AnE - conspiracy theorist, ardent viler-hater, nutjob cyclist, Cubie-bater, go-to iconoclast
14:14, Wed 22 May
QBBC2
...
It is incumbent on science to prove or disprove myths - that's kind of the point of science, to explain how and why - and science does fit evidence to prove a theory.

This is not correct. Science 'disproves' theories, not proves them. It's a pretty fundamental truism that underpins science, and is what separates science from religion or magic or alchemy.

There is no 'faith' in science. There is only mathematics, and if you think that mathematics requires 'faith' in the same way that belief in Extraterrestrials or God requires 'faith' then you are mistaken.

Maths neither proves nor disproves. It simply 'is'. In fact, if you wanted a revelation as to the true nature of God, I would give you Mathematics with a capital M. If there is a God, then she is a mathematician.

Mathematics is the tool humans have developed to make sense of the world. That doesn't mean the world exists because of maths.

Swapping the word 'myth' for the word 'theory' doesn't make you correct, it changes the point. A myth and a theory are not the same thing. That said, arguing semantics is a diversionary tactic anyway. Stick to the questions.

Yes, there is 'faith' in science. There is no such thing as scientific proof, therefore a belief in science to be correct requires faith. Both science and religion require epistemological shortcuts. For example, you can believe in quantum physics without being able to understand it or even describe it so you must take it on faith. Faith is a trust, belief or conviction that something is true.
14:22, Wed 22 May
That doesn't mean the animal had a tail the same size and shape as a cedar tree though, does it?

Isn't it a description of how it's tail moved?

Not necessarily the size and shape, but to describe something as like something else it requires that thing to be like the other, does it not? Nobody would describe an elephant's tail as moving like a cedar.

And how do we know that a cedar tree in ancient times is the same as a cedar tree now? Or even the same tree at all?

You think ancient cedar trees may have been six to eight inches high and the thickness of a pencil and that it's only in the last three thousand years that they've grown to, in some instances, 120ft? Ok...

So, let me just get you straight, you believe there were fire breathing animals on Earth at the same time as humans?

Did I say that? I said humans wrote about them, that's all
14:24, Wed 22 May
Linked Image
14:26, Wed 22 May
QBBC2
That doesn't mean the animal had a tail the same size and shape as a cedar tree though, does it?

Isn't it a description of how it's tail moved?

Not necessarily the size and shape, but to describe something as like something else it requires that thing to be like the other, does it not? Nobody would describe an elephant's tail as moving like a cedar.

And how do we know that a cedar tree in ancient times is the same as a cedar tree now? Or even the same tree at all?

You think ancient cedar trees may have been six to eight inches high and the thickness of a pencil and that it's only in the last three thousand years that they've grown to, in some instances, 120ft? Ok...

So, let me just get you straight, you believe there were fire breathing animals on Earth at the same time as humans?

Did I say that? I said humans wrote about them, that's all

That's ok then.

I agree humans make stuff up. Always have, always will. Of course an animal can have a tail that moves like a cedar, or breathes fire, if it's fictional.

As long as you don't believe these animals to have been real that's ok.
There's too much opinion and not enough fact.
14:33, Wed 22 May
Cant you tell its the close season