 Alright guys, we're taking it back to eighth grade, an official powerpoint. Okay, did dinosaurs live with man? Before I jump fully into this, I do want to preface, since dinosaur is a fairly new term to human civilization and language, I am going to use dinosaur and dragon at semi interchangeably, not perfectly, so do bear with me, but I think, yes, very reasonably. The first reason that I have for this is that all across the world, across all major cultures throughout all of documented human history, dragons are present. So just to look at a small sample size of countries and cultures, we got China, Japan, Korea, Mesopotamia, Iran, Italy, Greece, North America, Canada, Russia, Germany, Mongolia, and Hungary. I don't think there's any argument that these cultures and these countries are traditionally very different, but that's only one thing to say, we can't, dragons are not the product purely of tradition, because these are also different. So let's look at a second factor other than tradition, let's look at climate. On the left, I have generally warm cultures and countries in red, that's Japan down through Greece for those listening on podcast. On the right, Canada, Russia, Germany, and Mongolia are generally cold, and then China, North America, and Hungary, when I looked into it, I had trouble actually pinning them in the corner, they kind of, they kind of go back and forth. So now we have two two factors that are greatly different throughout all of these countries, we can't say that they're all the same climate, we can't say they're all the same tradition, that's not the thing that produces dragons and or dinosaurs. So let's move to a third criteria, let's talk geography, specifically accessibility to large bodies of water. In the blue, Japan down to Greece, easily accessible to seas, large lakes, or oceans. And the light green, limited access, either because they're partially landlocked, or in the case of something like North America, if you had a tribe somewhere in Colorado, they still, even though they're in the Americas would never have access to a large body of water like that. And then Mongolia and Hungary are just examples of landlocked nations, I don't know if they always have been throughout history, but at least what I saw currently, they are indeed landlocked. So they don't have regular access to a massive body of water. So we've got three, three major differences throughout all of these cultures. They're difference in tradition, difference in climate and difference in geography. So none of those things can be the reason that they all have depictions of dragons. Reason two is a lack of exaggeration. Now I'm not talking dragons and gods. Certainly, there's plenty of exaggerations in myths and religions and whatnot of dragons with gods. Absolutely, I'll give you that. What I mean is when real humans are depicted alongside of dragons specifically in portraiture, such as here, the man slaying the dragon, the dragon doesn't look any larger than a modern green anaconda might be. This picture, it seems smaller than the horse. This picture, both those dragons seem smaller than the horses. And in this one, it seems to be even the least impressive, potentially smaller than the first dragon that I listed. And it doesn't really have any fantastic features to it. Now why do I bring this up? Because if these portraits, some of which are very famous, well known people, I'm not going into all the details for the sake of time, if these portraits are for the sake of hero worship or making a name for yourself, then absolutely they would be blowing these dragons as far proportion, you know, like the big end dragons and how to train your dragon or not, they would be huge, huge scale, just this massive feat. But no, what we actually see seems to be reasonably sized creatures that could actually be slain by a normal human given the right resources. The third reason, dragons aren't beyond possibility. And now what do I mean by this? Let's start with unfantastic dragons, such as the French salamander dragon. This really doesn't have, it's not too much of a far cry from a modern day Komodo dragon, it's got a longer neck, probably a little bigger, or a, I think it's called a Baryonix. This dinosaur actually could have been the reason or a similar dinosaur could have been the reason for this depiction. Here's another depiction of this same kind of dinosaur. Not perfect, but again, not a far cry. Let's move back, let's move into dragons of a more fantastic appearance. On the left is traditional Asia dragons. On the right is a Germanic dragon. And I think the issue that we run into with these, the thing that's commonly held up against them is these are just so fantastic in their size, in their components, what they're made of, their autonomy. I used the wrong word there. Anyway, anatomic, their anatomic structures, they're so unique that they just don't seem reasonable. But let me push back against that a little bit and say, here are some modern day creatures. The anglerfish, it's in my opinion kind of ugly, but it's a fantastic looking creature. Both of these seahorses, beautiful, fantastic looking creatures. These birds I don't think are quite as offland buoyant or extravagant as the other two, but certainly very fantastic in their own right. And then the king of combo, the platypus, lots of different anatomic structures pushed into one creature. Put these two ideas together, the fact that we can obviously combine creatures or different structures into one creature with the fantastic appearance of other creatures. It seems to me that the dragon is just the platypus of fantastic looking creatures. Could have been multiple species, multiple different types of dragons. And again, dragons and or dinosaurs. Okay, well, I just showed they're reasonable. Where are they now? Why don't we see them? I have four possible explanations, extermination by fear. Now, I think this is least likely because while certain tribes and cultures could have been so afraid that they exterminated a certain species of dragon, we all live alongside alligators, anacondas, lions, tigers and bears. And we actually tried to preserve them even though all of them could tear us to pieces if we were one on one in the wild. I think more, six minutes, okay, I'm almost done. More probable over utilization. Marco Polo, when he was over in Asia, he found that a large reptilian creature was hunted because it had incredible medicinal purposes. It also was highly sought after as being a it was good for eating, and it had a hide that was very profitable as well. They're over farmed. Second one, which I think is equally as probable is they're over killed for sport. Given that they look, they are fantastic, powerful creatures in their own right. Any king, nobleman, someone who wanted to make a name for himself would have killed one of these, kind of like if we didn't have rules and regulations, powerful people might be hunting, having elephant tusks and tiger heads in their living rooms. And most probable, natural selection. It incorporates all the first three because humans would have existed alongside of them. So humans are not only killing them in all three of these ways, but now you factor in disease under population. Are they really the best fit for the environment? I think they could have naturally just gone extinct. And I think that will wrap up my presentation. Just for the sake of it, here are links to all of my photos. And actually the whole first, first slide of photos was all from Wikipedia and whatnot. So if you're interested, here they are, type them out. Sorry, you can't copy and paste them. I will hand it over now to CJ. Stop sharing. Have I stopped? Yes, you have. And phenomenal. Thank you so very much. And we'll hand it back over for the other half of the affirmative. Yeah, thank you. So I want to give thanks to everybody for actually participating here, including the audience for participating in, you know, listening and all that. The reasons given by Benjamin, I think are perfectly legitimate reasons. And I want to kind of add to them for why I think it's very likely dinosaurs might have lived with man. I think I want to stress a little bit the ubiquity of dragon legends. And most particular about the ubiquity of dragon legends is the fact that they are very often, as was previously stated, non fantastical. And in fact, in an explicitly realistic context, a perfect example of this that I'm sure nobody here has lack of familiarity with is the zodiac of the Chinese mythology. The zodiac of Chinese mythology is 11 real and existing animals. And then we have this one creature, the dragon, that appears to break the pattern and is a non realistic animal. Now, all the different animals that show up on that Chinese zodiac do have certain mythological elements to them in other stories. For example, we know that there's a monkey kung fu in Chinese mythology, right? And the whole style there of that kung fu is meant to try and take on certain spiritual elements that the Chinese believe they were getting from monkeys and things of that nature, right? And you know, there's dog kung fu and stuff like that. There's, you know, different what they call those the Chinese lions that you guys have probably seen, especially familiar with the avatar of the last airbender, you probably seen the turtle lion, right? Well, the face that's on that turtle lion is actually referenced to another existing in the in Chinese mythology creature that you've probably seen on temples and stuff like that, right? This sort of Chinese lion. And it's clearly mythologized, right? And so my point in bringing all that up is to say, you know, when we see a mythologized version of a Chinese dragon in Chinese mythology, that doesn't seem to be strange considering they have mythologized and exaggerated versions of all the different animals that they place there on that zodiac. But nonetheless, we see that in the listing of these 12 creatures, one seems to be not like the others in that the other 11 exist. Well, I would say that's likely because at least in the opinion of the Chinese, it likely did exist, right? And they have mythologized versions just like they mythologize any other existing animals. Another example you have of that also from the Chinese would be recipes that call for things like dragon scale and dragon teeth and stuff like that. Now we have tons of things that exist like this to this day, right? For example, people will go and they'll hunt rhinoceros, they'll cut off the rhinoceros horn, and then they'll make, you know, some sort of a magic medicine or something like that. And we, having our sciences today, are pretty well aware of what that actually is. It's keratin, same stuff as your fingernails and your hair. It doesn't actually do anything. But when these people are setting up these different, you know, elixirs and stuff like that for their different traditional medicines, they're obviously using a real creature's horn. A real creature, which just for the record, is incredibly large and looks as if it probably shouldn't exist, right? The rhinoceros looks like it's a, it's a fantastical looking beast, I guess is the point. Well, we have records of different elixirs, different medicines and different things of that nature from ancient China that call for dragon scales, dragon teeth, dragon bones, stuff of that nature, right? Again, kind of placing them into a realm that seems to be you know, realistic and legitimate and stuff like that. And you know, of course we can go down with the different stories here that people have, like for example, the story of Beowulf and stuff like that. But that's not really the main purpose of my point. Point is just to say we see groupings of these creatures alongside other real and existing creatures, right? There's also, like I said that when it comes to that particular point, the ubiquity of these legends in all the different places. Anything we see in mythology that is ubiquitous is at least grounded in human experience. I'll give a perfect example in the form of giants. Now do 40-foot people exist? No, but Shaquille O'Neal does, and Yao Ming does, and other men who are quite large compared to the rest of us do exist. So we can see why Greece, China, Africa, Mexico, Israel, they're all going to have the same legends as it pertains to giant humans because giant humans exist. Will they exaggerate that? Mythologize that? That kind of stuff? No doubt. But there is still a grounding in easily discernible reality. Another example you could give for this is vampirism. Well, people who for cultic reasons drink blood do exist. Now, do they turn into bats? Do they have the whole thing with driving the stake through them? All that kind of stuff? Of course not, right? So there certainly is, again, mythologized elements here. But we do see, again, a ubiquitous something that's cross-cultural that's grounded in easily discernible reality, which is why it tends to be cross-cultural. In the same way, I think we can look at these different large reptilian megafauna. We have large reptilian megafauna and all the different mythologies throughout the world. There doesn't seem to be anything else that's ubiquitous without being grounded in reality. So while we can certainly look at the flying might not be accurate, breathing fire and stuff like that might not be accurate. We can see certain mythologized elements of this. The fact that they exist should be grounded in some sort of easily discernible reality, just like everything else we find ubiquitous throughout mythology. I'm not aware of one ubiquitous myth that is not grounded in an existing creature phenomenon or something along those sorts. And I would challenge anybody to bring one up just to give an example of a myth that is not ubiquitous. It's not ubiquitous that there are very powerful angelic beings living on Olympus. And that's because there aren't really powerful angelic beings living on Olympus, right? It's just to give an example of when you have something that's unique to a certain culture, it's easy to see how a culture could make that up or misinterpret something or something along those lines. But when it comes to these things that are found all over the world, thank you, it doesn't appear to be the case that any of these ubiquitous myths actually are the creations of human beings and stuff like that. And then the last thing I would just want to say in regards to this is this isn't a strictly creationist kind of problem, right? So like for example, Carl Sagan, the astrophysicist, had the same kind of question that I have here of why do all these people have all these legends of large reptilian megafauna found all over the world? He of course comes to different conclusions than I do. But the point is just to say this issue is a issue regardless of what we are concluding in our opinions about like religion and age of the earth and evolution and stuff like that. It still seems like there's a decent amount of evidence, all that stuff beside that would suggest there's some sort of reality behind these dragon depictions. And I would say that reality is likely the large reptilian megafauna that we found all over the world, namely dinosaurs. With that, I'll go ahead and cease. I appreciate you guys having the conversation with me and look forward to getting back and forth. Thank you so very much to the affirmative. And with that, we are going to hand it over to the negative for their up to 12 minute opening statements. Thanks. And could you stop me at six minutes so I can give the rest of my time to my friend, Snake? Absolutely. Great. And I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Okay. One second, please. All right. So I would like to begin my opening statement by setting a definition for scientific proof that I feel like will be absolutely impossible for our opponents to meet. Science, the collection and documentation of observable facts and an ongoing discussion of how these facts can be linked together into explanations. As predicted, the primary evidence that our opponents have given so far have been extremely cultural. And I will be spending the majority of my time for my section of the opening statement showing why cultural evidence is completely irrelevant. So the most compelling cultural evidence that has been provided for this problem so far would be the idea of cave paintings and hieroglyphics. Why would these be the most compelling is because theoretically you could make the case that no cross-cultural contamination was possible because people were not migrating at the same way that they were during ancient China, ancient Greece, wherever. And I want to take a little bit of time to show why the most famous hieroglyphics are completely absurd and basically just open to interpretation. The most well-sighted one is this guy. People say that this is very clear proof that it is a dinosaur. I say it could be an ostrich, an exceptionally beautiful chicken, or a tilted elephant. Also, this handsome fella could be a praying mantis, high-fashion model, a pigeon, or an exceptionally beautiful chicken. And once again, this friendly guy could be an upset cat, a windingo, and once again, once more an exceptionally beautiful chicken. What is this proof that chickens are exceptionally beautiful? Now, I'm glad that my opponent mentioned before that dragons are ubiquitous and that there are several other examples of ubiquitous myths. And I'd like to take a little bit of time to reflect on the ubiquitous myths that are even more common than dragons. So mermaids can also be found in hieroglyphics all across the world, where cross-cultural contamination would be extremely unlikely, and as well throughout history and throughout many cultures. Likewise, vampires, as mentioned by my lovely opponent, have been found almost universally across cultures and werewolves. Now, my opponent mentioned that these are not extreme and they're not absurd because they're run in reality. They're all based off of human forms. So are dragons. Lizards exist. This is something that we know. In fact, we are even aware of Komodo dragons and other animals right now that have striking resemblances to various dragon myths. And I do find it a bit of a strange definition that they're linking dragons and dinosaurs directly together. And I think that this is a far leap and neither me nor my partner Snake will accept the definition that a dragon is a dinosaur. My opponent asked, can you name one ubiquitous myth that is not grounded in reality whatsoever? And I absolutely can. And this is the most ubiquitous myth of all time. And it is found in every single culture, every single part of the world throughout history consistently. And that is ghosts. And maybe my opponents want to make the case that ghosts exist, but I do not think that we can assume that ghosts are a fact. And I'm sure that many people in the audience also think that ghosts are not a fact. So people may turn to hieroglyphics or cultural evidence to show that humans existed with dinosaurs because they have sort of the visual depictions. I'm here to say that correlation is not causation. In fact, the artistic depictions of dragons very likely have changed the way that we consider dinosaurs and depict them via our archaeological evidence. As you can see, the way that we depict dinosaurs in the scientific community drastically changes throughout the decades to the point where they look completely unrecognizable as our science becomes more advanced. So I'd like to argue that the reason that dragons resemble dinosaurs is because we have the ability to reference previous cultures and depict it in that way. And as we come more and more advanced, it becomes more of a distant resemblance. And finally, I'd like to conclude this rebuttal by saying that if we accept the standard of evidence that humans existed with dinosaurs, in a thousand years, people who are on your side are going to use these images to prove that humans existed with dinosaurs. So I'd like to use my opening statement to hopefully establish that cultural evidence is completely irrelevant and should not be regarded. And with that, how much time have I taken? Have two more minutes left? Two more minutes? Okay. So I want to bring up the fact that you are mentioning that these dragons that you have listed are found all over the world despite regional differences, climate differences. And I'd like to make the argument that if your case was actually correct, this would not be true. It would be far more likely that these dinosaurs that still existed were only present in certain regions within the world and not all over. It's very unlikely to imagine that all of these dinosaurs existed simultaneously all across the planet. And I want to say that you describe these dragons as non-fantastical and therefore more likely to be real. However, I find that your definition of fantastical is absolutely subjective. Can you scientifically quantify what is fantastical? No, you can't. So it's simply you claiming that they are non-fantastical. And as my partner Snake will bring up, dragons also look drastically different according to different cultures to the point where they become unrecognizable. And I really want to stress over and over and over again that there are so many other possible influences for our depictions of dragons based within nature. And furthermore, we actually have scientific evidence. Our side has scientific evidence. And the scientific evidence can be found in the fact that carbon dating, radioactive dating has never shown humans and dinosaurs to exist within the same time. In fact, if you look within the layers of the earth, there is a 66 million year gap between the last existing dinosaurs and humans. And with that, I'd like to yield my time to Snake. Okay. So, okay, how does that look? Looks good on my end. It doesn't look scrunched or anything. No, I think it looks good. Okay. Anybody else? All right. So basically, I didn't really see much presented at all other than dragon myths. And, well, this severely underdetermines the issue because there are so many other explanations for these myths. We also have radiometric dating of the samples of all the dinosaurs. Well, at least the layers they're found in. And so all of the science, all the consensus goes against this proposition. We would have to be debunking all the best science and scientists and they would have had to severely not know what they're talking about while the Bible does or really what they're going off of is just various myths from around the world. And I guess I'm also going to pre debunk some of the stuff that since we really didn't have much to go on. And I'll just shore up some of my arguments a little bit. As my partner wonderfully demonstrated chickens are beautiful. And but what she failed to disclose is that chickens are in fact dinosaurs. So yes, obviously birds are accepted as dinosaurs in evolutionary biology. But I think we can all agree that we're talking about non avian non bird dinosaurs, the ones that supposedly according to the science died off millions of years ago. So there are lots of supposed cave paintings and depictions of dinosaurs and stuff. And they're usually really rough, a little bit like this one. But we know artists of these time have very detailed techniques. So there's no so a lot of these things like like this famous example are actually just the result of Paradolia. This one in particular, the author Paul Taylor of the book that this that the image on the left was in, apparently created this image specifically to look like the image on the right. And which was very undetailed and really is inaccurate as to what dinosaurs really would have looked like they did not have floppy tails. These this particular species is trying to compare it to would not have walked like this or been able to even physically bend its tail like that. There's the other famous sauropod at Katrina Bridge. It appears to have some sort of wing attached to it. And again, the tales of dinosaurs have been discovered to be bi mechanically not possible to be floppy like that. Okay, so maybe the artist is taking a bit of liberty. But there have been there's been a study on this particular image, and it is a composite of different things. So it is not an entire image of one entity. It is it appears more like abstract art of some kind. But the the legs and the supposed body are different. And there appears to be a wing attached of some kind if we're going with that as an animal. So this does not accurately depict any known dinosaur. There's the famous ecostones, which were admitted to be frauds and hoaxes. And again, they depict dinosaurs like antiquated depictions with floppy tails that dragged on the ground. This has been thoroughly debunked by just anatomical facts. If you see the tail on the specimen, it has those spines where they would it would break its own tail bones, bending it like that. We could get into the dinosaur soft tissues, but that wasn't even brought up. And that's fully explained by the chemistry. So moving on to dragon depictions. This is the these don't look like any dinosaurs I'm aware of. I'm not sure why they're being compared to dragons. They but we already have animals that are large reptiles. So there's no reason to think that these are specifically depicting dinosaurs, they could just be exaggerations. Again, this underdetermines the issue because we know humans exaggerate things. And there are examples that are still alive like crocodiles or Komodo dragons that they could base this on. They don't resemble any actual dinosaurs outside of being large reptiles. So they none of these represent the profiles of any dinosaurs are known. The only common feature is that they kind of look like big reptiles. There are no similarities other than that. There are no dinosaurs with wings, no dinosaurs that we know of that can breathe fire. Again, this not doesn't look like any dinosaur that's known. And dragons from all over the world represent different species, I guess of dragons, whatever you want to call them, which okay, maybe they have different species of dinosaurs all over the world. Certainly they did. But a lot of dinosaur species are found ubiquitously because of Pangea. But these dragon depictions are all not really biophysically possible. There's a lot of documentation on how specifically dragon wings just will not carry an organism like that. Like they just they don't have an anchor point. They're not strong enough. Dinosaur bones are typically not light enough, except for the smaller ones that probably evolved into birds. We could have gone into cryptid zones where maybe Nessie is a surviving dinosaur. Well, Nessie hasn't been proven to exist. So again, just trying to cover some bases. And I guess my last piece of evidence would be there's often claims of dinosaur and human footprints next to each other. But I don't know if you can tell these footprints are actually alternating between the human like print and the dinosaur like print in the same track of things. So you'd have to have a dinosaur that's evolving into a human and back into a dinosaur mid stride. And they've actually described why some of these footprints look like human footprints because the toes and the heels can collapse because they were filled with mud. And we see evidence of this. Very clearly these this was a three toeed some kind of organism and but the toes have collapsed. More mud would have flushed out those toes even more and the cracks would not be very noticeable. And you'd get a sort of human silhouette ish type print. And so none of the evidence actually is able to determine that there were humans with dinosaurs. In fact, the evidence is way to the contrary. Any evidence that could possibly fit that hypothesis is undetermined. You can't tell the difference between mythological reports of dragons and people attempting to capture real living dinosaurs as in the art. And yes, dragon myths are grounded in giant reptiles, which exist all over the world and human imagination. We know lots of these monsters can be made up. Large reptiles exist. Birds exist. They put wings on a large reptile and you have a dragon. And I'll stop there. Thank you so very much. Snake was right. In fact, I would like to thank all of our interlocketers. And that concludes both sides opening statements. But if you just joined us, welcome everyone to modern day debate. We are a neutral, nonpartisan platform welcoming everyone while looking for good dialogue. If you're looking for even more fantastic debates, please don't forget to like and subscribe, including tonight's debate on did dinosaurs live with man, including our interlocketers CJ and Benjamin versus cinematic psychology. And Snake was right here to help us find some answers. And if you enjoyed what any of them have to say or will say tonight, all of our guest links are in the description below. With that, I'm going to hand it back over to our panel so they can have around 55 minutes of open discussion. Once again, guys and gals, the floor is yours. Yeah, I would like to ask the interlockers right off the bat if they have absolutely any scientifically verifiable evidence that dinosaurs existed with man that has not been proven a hoax or false? Oh, well, so I think first off, I don't know that the response to the cultural evidences was sufficient. But as far as purely scientific, I would freely agree that that's not my wheelhouse. So I wouldn't know very well. The reason I tend to approach these from this historical perspective is because I do think there is something to be said about the histories that have been passed on. And for the most part, it does appear to me like myths are the ancient man's attempts at history very often. And we tend to misuse them as myths when in reality they weren't intended that way at the time, even if they're wrong, right? Which is something I can freely grant. But as far as the explicit scientific evidence of like, have we found a live dinosaur, we found some fresh droppings, I think the evidence of the Mary Switzer's thing with the blood and the bones or whatever it was, that does seem to be at face value, relatively convincing. I know she doesn't actually agree with what the creationists have concluded there. But I do think that it is an interesting thing and I would like to see some long term tests done to see whether or not it's actually possible for iron to preserve something over that long a period of time. Because I don't know that you'd even make it 100 years and you could actually test something like that. But I could be totally wrong about that too, to be fair. So to quote the actual study that Mary Switzer conducted, a role for iron and oxygen chemistry and preserving soft tissue cells and molecules from deep time, there were several control experiments. One of them, the one using hemoglobin iron. No microbial influence is detected in the hemoglobin conditions at room temperature after two years. And the blood vessels were fully inflated and there were no areas of collapse. And after these two years, suggesting intact elastin proteins, again quoting no regions of breakdown were detected and the surface texture was intact. And this was after two years. And so it seems that this is a molecular mechanism for the preservation of tissues. And this was fully full on bones that were preserved with no degradation whatsoever. So the rate of degradation was zero. And this was for two years. I suppose you could keep the experiment running for millions of years, but we don't have that kind of time. But there are no counter experiments saying that there is a law of nature that these bones have to degrade before whatever timeframe is your instinct. And the instinct argument is just an argument from incredulity, which is a fallacy, which means it's not actually an argument at all. Well, I would even grant that it's not a very serious scientific objection. I don't even mind that. Like I said, I want to approach it primarily from the cultural perspectives. I just want to share that it's like a question I think is reasonable. And it's not like it's impossible for us to have an incredibly long-term test. We had an E. coli experiment for like 40 years, right? However long it actually took for that to take place, multiple thousands of generations. And so I think it would be a good idea for us to see something like that. Because when you're talking about extrapolating two years on to a period of like 66 million, now obviously you're going to run into that same problem regardless of where you go. But my skepticism certainly whittles down the longer that time period gets. And to be clear, the actual tissues found in the fossils were rock solid when they were discovered. There was no soft tissue actually discovered at the sites. They had to break it down for about a week, I think, in acid and take a lot of the minerals out. And so what was left was just mere protein fragments. There were no whole cells. Just kind of like the skeletons of some proteins, basically. Can I jump in? Go ahead. Great. I'm going to digress. So would you guys say that the scientific method is the only means by which we can know something with any certainty? No. Fantastic, I would agree. So I'm happy to move on past that because I'm arguing specifically or primarily from a historical viewpoint. But we do apply the scientific method to, historians do apply the scientific method. And just to be clear, you are not arguing from a historical point of mythology. And mythology is called mythology for a reason because it is a myth. Well, that's not exactly true, though. Because first off, we do have plenty of purely historical records referencing dragons. So you could go Josephus, Herodotus, Marco Polo, and etc. And so that certainly is something that needs to be factored in here. But the other thing too is that's not the way the ancients understood myth. Perfect example of this is the Iliad, right? We are relatively convinced today that the Trojan War did happen. Now, how much of the Iliad is true? Of course, that's up for debate. Did Achilles really exist? Was it really over Helen, yada yada, so on and so forth, right? But the point is, when they were writing those stories about the Trojan War, they were writing about something they thought was true. And we've been able to verify now that indeed it was true, or at least that we're relatively convinced that it's true. So when we say mythology is arguing from a point of essentially historical fiction, that's not really accurate. The ancients actually saw these things as events that really did take place. Very often, legend mythologizing things of that nature, I would certainly grant that. But we have very good evidence that a lot of these events did take place. And we know that they meant to communicate things that took place. And to give a clear example of another one that we would see here as far as them meaning to communicate it, we have talks from not only Herodotus, who's a historian, but also many philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates, and so on. And they're all trying to look at the historical Hercules and how you can get in Antisthenes is actually very famous for this, trying to look at what you can learn from the historical Hercules. Now, is there a historical Hercules? Maybe, maybe not. That's not the point. The point is Antisthenes, who's a Greek living in that cultural context, believes that story to be history. In other words, mythology is not this ancient fiction as we like to look at it today. It actually is the ancients' attempts to tell stories about themselves through semi-historical lens. It isn't strictly true that mythology, that they believed that they were literal. They're the Greek mysteries. They had a whole festivals about these mysteries. They didn't literally believe that there were gods just sitting up on the mountain that they could go visit, Mount Olympus. A lot of the Greek mysteries was about recognizing how bizarre their mythology was and yet had a metaphorical truth tied to it. And so I think like fiction today, like superheroes, Marvel, stuff like that, they knew that a lot of this was not literally true. Perhaps they did think Zeus was throwing down lightning bolts. They had no other explanation, but it's unclear whether they actually believed that there were literally gods intervening and joining the battles in the Trojan War. And this is reflected in the Greek mystery festivals. Well, I think that goes to my point though, where it's like, I'm not saying that none of this is mythologized and I'm not saying that all of it is like 100% true all the time, but I am saying that our understanding of myths as this purely fictional or spiritual thing is not really accurate. A lot of times it is their attempts to tell, like I said, stories about their own histories and experiences. I know that that's not nearly enough to prove your case. And in fact, your line of thinking is dangerous because if we accept your line of thinking, then we have absolutely no boundary between fact and fiction. And I really find it interesting that you're using myths to sort of justify your case when most people who subscribe to the idea that dinosaurs live with man are young, earth creationists and all of these myths that you're citing are directly in contrast to the scripture that most people who believe in subscribe to to come to that conclusion. Well, that's actually an interesting point. I would say, and I'll let Benjamin talk after this. I'm sorry, I've been talking a lot, but I would say that I think my belief in the existence of dinosaurs with man doesn't hang upon my belief in the Bible. And a good example of that I think is like I said, Carl Sagan, he is not a Christian, not a young earth creationist, certainly accepted evolution. But he also saw, you know, there's something really bizarre about how many mythologies and histories, again, you could reference Herodotus, Josephus, and etc. have these giant reptilian megafauna all over the world. Like why do they all come to that same conclusion? So I don't want to take too much time because Benjamin wanted to talk also, but sure, I wanted to push back against the biblical reference thing. So you guys, between the two of your openings, I think you guys strawmander us a little bit. We didn't make any specific biblical references that I could recall. I also neither of us showed any cave paintings or hieroglyphs. At best I showed semi-modern pottery works and paintings, one of which was of St. George. Now St. George was a real person. There's a legend around him fighting or slaying a dragon. So did he actually? That's up for debate. He certainly could have. And the point that I made on the exaggeration standpoint is if it was truly just exaggerated, if St. George really didn't do that, why didn't they just blow that dragon completely out of proportion? Why do so many different pictures of it look like something that's reasonably sized and certainly could have existed? So is this enough information to tell that it was a dragon or perhaps he fought a crocodile? That's not the angle I was going for. What I was getting at is I was using something far more clear and depicted than cave paintings or hieroglyphs. And on that same note, Snake, you said we don't have anything, at least not in cave paintings, no degree, not a whole lot, anything that resembles specifically a dragon. However, my question is if we found something that resembled a dragon, wouldn't it just be a chicken? What do you mean? Do you mean it resembles accurately a dinosaur? Yeah, what cave painting can I show you that looks far more like a dragon or dinosaur than a chicken? Which one can I show you that you won't say, well, it could just be a chicken? For example, the Suks Indian one that psychology presented, do you really think that that looks like a chicken? That cave painting, you really think that looks like a chicken? I mean, seriously, genuinely. The point is that it is extremely easy to morph these images into whatever agenda you're trying to push. And I feel like my partner Snake did an excellent job of showing that these images were not intentional and absolutely not intentional to depict dinosaurs. Well, yes. And I drew a clear line. I drew a clear line in my second reason for non-exaggeration. I said there certainly were some exaggerations in the clear mythology. But then I showed that there are other cases where it's not intended to be, or at least it doesn't seem to be intended to be mythology. And so that's why I'm pushing now, pushing back now on if we have something that doesn't have any reference to mythology, no reference to gods, no reference to anything. When do we get to the point where you guys don't call it a chicken? So one of the issues like art is stylized. So if you go and look at Mesoamerican art, like Quetzalcoatlis, you can barely tell that that's supposed to be a snake. But it barely looks like a snake. I think their depictions of birds are equally exaggerated and stylized. And people aren't always going to have the best skill in realism. But I think your question about the cave painting on art, which one could you show me that I would accept? I think that's the issue is no real depiction could really determine the issue because it's just art. I mean, unless it was dead on to what modern paleontology says and it somehow we could confirm that this was carved in, you know, ancient times. But but the issue seems to be that I don't think artistic depictions could are enough evidence to prove your point. And I would also like to add on that the fact that you're showing that these are does not prove your case whatsoever. There are plenty of myths that are not necessarily terribly hard to believe, for example, elves or, you know, gremlins, you know, their trolls, there are plenty of things that are not fantastical. And even your partner kind of contradicted you by mentioning giants in the first place. So that doesn't prove any evidence. And this is a bit of a tangent, but there is a certain way to be more persuasive when you're lying is by basing your lie on something more realistic. And lizards once more exist. So do beautiful chickens. Yes, beautiful chickens. Even with the painting certainly can't be a chicken. It's a beautiful non chicken chicken. Exactly. And I'm just being punchy at the arguments not at you. So this is not intended to be personal. I do I appreciate and I find it's a little bit humorous the the line of thinking that well, the the dragons and everything that we're seeing in these paintings, they're just they're all fictional. They're they're all made up. They're all so exaggerated. And it's not even that you're just saying, Oh, well, there were dragons, they're just, you know, really exaggerated. They probably didn't look like that. We're saying no, they're the ones that look like dragons, the one that looks the ones that look, you know, really unique. Like I point out in the third part, those can't exist. If we were debating, for example, Noah's flood, and we brought up, look at all the historical evidence for global floods in every culture. The argument would be, well, that's because every culture has a body of water. And so while there probably was flooding, they just exaggerated it. So what we say there is, because it's convenient, we are okay with saying they took an existing thing and just exaggerated it. But when it comes to dragons, no, they couldn't have taken a dragon that existed and exaggerated it or dinosaur and exaggerated it. We have to say no, it completely doesn't exist because it's it's not convenient. Why is that why is that more ridiculous? That that all cultures exaggerate in storytelling and tell fiction? Then there was actually a much more a miraculous event. Well, no, I don't think he said that it's ridiculous. I think it's, I think the point is supposed to be that we see, even if we don't believe in Noah's flood, which I understand that you two would not, we, you could still see that there is like this is grounded in reality that we can discern here from today. In fact, one of the things I was glad to see some of the examples brought up of ubiquitous myths, because I think they do go to make the point. Manatees, we actually know very well that manatees and mermaids are likely one in the same, obviously one being the uninformed, right? So Christopher Columbus, for example, said he saw mermaids off of the coast of the Caribbean. And we today believe that they was very likely referencing manatees. There's also, of course, seals, which look very much like, if you look at a silhouette version, look very much like something that could be described as a mermaid, even though the actual mermaid itself doesn't exist, right? Werewolf is a similar one. Werewolf, in fact, comes from Greece. And not only do we know wolves and men exist, but we know that the Greeks were very refined of the taking the two and putting them together sort of thing with centaurs and with the half goat thing that's name is completely fleeting me at the moment, the Minotaur, stuff like that, right? So we can see not only where it came from, but also why it came from. And a couple of that with things like rabies and other degenerative diseases. It's again, something that seems to be very easily grounded. Although I don't know if werewolves would actually be ubiquitous. I think that we can clearly trace those back to Greco-Roman myth, but I digress on that part. When it comes to these other sort of ubiquitous myths, you know what I mean? It seems to me like they have to be grounded somewhere. Now you've offered potentially a Komodo dragon, but a Komodo dragon, hence its name, lives in a very isolated area. There's no reason we should see the Greeks and the Scottish and the Irish and the Egyptians and all them having reference to Komodo dragons. And when we say another creature, for example, another one was brought up as the crocodile, well they know what the crocodile is and they depict it as a crocodile. Even the mythologized version they depict as a crocodile. For example, there's that Egyptian god with the crocodile head, right? That's clearly, I think something we would all agree it is mythology in the modern sense of the word. It's fake, it's fiction, right? But the crocodile does actually resemble a crocodile, that crocodile head at least, right? To me it seems like when we have all these different myths kind of referencing the self-same thing coupled with histories from the same time referencing these as existing creatures, like Herodotus and the different philosophers Marco Polo, even nuts all the way up to the 1300s, I think. That does seem to me to be like there has to be something they're seeing. Even if it's not a dinosaur, although that seems to me to be the most likely explanation, there has to be something there. Yeah, so I wanted to seize on the manatees example. So they thought that these big lumbering sea cows were mermaids. And that's quite a stretch in depiction and perception. So it's quite easy to understand how you can exaggerate even a smaller, a lizard on the smaller end into a dragon. Maybe they thought it was just a baby dragon. Did, um, do we have the... I also want to add, am I on mute or...? No. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I do want to point out that for the manatees and mermaids case, I think that's a good point. But part of my argument is globally across humanity and across time we've got dragons. I don't think that same criteria falls into mermaids and manatees. Oh, there are. I don't think that's a parallel example is what I'm saying. I don't know about vampires and never researched it. Globally, we have exaggerated monstrous animals that in most cases were probably based on something, but that doesn't mean that they're based on dinosaurs. I don't understand why the dragons have to have to be based on dinosaurs. Yeah, and, you know, mermaids have actually been found in every continent. In America, didn't mean to say that. That's not what I meant to say, but I kind of wanted to add that, you know, there are numerous, numerous examples of animals that look like dinosaurs, you know, not just the Komodo dragon, you know, the frill dragon, the armadillo, the emo, the iguana, alligators, turtles, monitor lizards, bearded dragons, chameleons, hornbills, sail fin dragons, green basilis, snakehead turtles, crocodile skink, and many, many more that I'm reading off of this fancy list, and I can even show you some pictures. And if I could add real quick, it's not like these people were raised with children's books and singing songs about the farm and all the animals and have access to the internet. Most people would not know what they're looking at if they just ran into something in the woods or if they're conquesting in Africa, like I think is the case with St. George, they're not going to have crocodiles natively up in Europe. Well, I guess the question would be if St. George actually killed a crocodile, you think they'd be much more accurately with the painting abilities they had then, because it wasn't hieroglyphs, you think they'd very accurately be able to paint a crocodile, because a crocodile looks pretty scary in itself. There's a whole bunch of weird things that people paint. Yeah, and if they've never seen it before, and they're probably going back home and painting it then off of memory, your memory can exaggerate a lot. I would push back pretty heavy on that because especially back before writing was a huge thing globally. People's memory, people's war traditions and whatnot, sometimes they're inflated, but they were far more sharp than ours. I don't think that's a fair standard to apply into the past. People used to be able to remember things much, much better. This will get a little bit biblical, but not in any truly related sense. It was Jewish tradition that kids would memorize the entire Torah and be able to recite it, be able to talk it, write it. Now we can't do that because as technology has progressed, our minds have not had to be as disciplined. I think I wouldn't be satisfied with that point, Snake, just made there. But not everyone is a memory expert. Yeah, there were a whole bunch of other factors affecting the past that drastically taint accounts, various substances that were taken on a regular basis via their cultures. Irregardless, there have been numerous psychological studies that have shown that eyewitness accounts even in recent times as soon as 24 hours are extremely unreliable. And with mundane things. Yeah, and in emotional circumstances, they're almost completely useless. And in fact, psychologists have the ability to completely manipulate minds and having false memories altogether. If you've never seen a crocodile in your life, I don't think you'd be able to process that very easily. Well, unless you killed it as King as George did and had it in your possession, then you can probably pretty easily figure out what it looks like. I think the big gap or the big dilemma I'm having with what you guys are presenting is you are coming at it with the presupposition that dragons don't exist. And so therefore, these things are fantastic. Whereas we're coming at it from if they did exist. And these paintings, again, in the not specifically mythological senses, and these paintings are accurate, then what we're seeing was the real thing that they actually painted. So it's not quite that that we're just a priori assuming dragons don't exist. I'm just saying that depictions of dragons in art is not enough to show that they did exist. And my major contention with your side is not even necessarily the existence of dragons, but your definition of dragons are dinosaurs. Dragons do exist, but they're a lot more mundane than you're trying to depict. And we know them. Sure. So the reason that I made that distinction, and I said in most cases, I would be using dragon and dinosaur parallel. That's because the word dinosaur just didn't exist. So let's say that dinosaurs did exist with humans 300 years ago, they probably would have called a triceratops a kind of dragon because the word dinosaur wasn't there. And so what they're calling a dragon and a book or whatnot would be a triceratops. Today we'd say, oh, that's not a dragon. That's a dinosaur. That's the point that I'm making. They certainly have the potential to be crossing over. But one thing I do want to briefly point out about that too is because you'd said earlier some, one of the two, I can't remember which, so I apologize. I don't want to put words in human's mouth, but it was one of the two talked about how this would be sort of a demonstration of how wrong, you know, all these different areas of biological science have been considering our belief that they died off, you know, some 66 million some odd years ago. But I don't think you have to grant anything like a young earth or lack of evolution or anything like that in order to see, I think, why that would work. And a perfect example of that is you both would, I think, clearly accept the existence of sealic ants, which, you know, and I doubt that the existence of sealic ants has caused you to question whether or not you think the earth is hundreds of millions of years old, right? But we found them originally in incredibly old fossils, they seemingly disappeared from the fossil record, and then we found them alive off the coast of South Africa. And my only point in saying that then is just to say if we have, you know, when we see a large reptilian creature and, you know, let's say just hypothetically, I was able to go shoot some velociraptor or something, get it in a cage and, you know, we could show it to everybody. You could still be perfectly fine in saying, okay, that creature has ancestors that we have in the fossil record millions of years ago, I obviously wouldn't agree with that, but I wouldn't think that would like disprove what science has laid out. If anything, it would just demonstrate that Lazarus taxes exist, and we already know that. So to make this debate workable, can you provide a clear definition for dinosaurs that you cannot manipulate to your own convenience that cannot be found in our known biological system today that would be fair and reasonable for both of our sides? Because my personal definition of dinosaurs are the reptilian animals that went extinct in the crustaceous area. Sure. So go ahead Ben. Well, I was just going to say again, the point that I last made was where my definitions are crossing over and the point that I made about, well, Snake, will you ever accept it as something other than a chicken, no matter how good it looks? The point I was making is I showed an example of how the French salamander, which Snake also showed, resembled the Baryonics dinosaur. It resembled, I'm not saying it's a perfect fit, but also the Suex, I'm not pronouncing it right, but the Suex Native Americans that you actually showed that I said, how in the world can you think that's a chicken? That could have resembled ankylosporus. I always called them clubtails as a kid. So those things resemble the definition that you just asked us to give, but when we say, hey, here it is, you say, well, that could be a chicken. So I think that's where I'm saying, it seems you guys have a presupposition that won't let you get to us, even if we give you what you're asking for. And I think it was kind of found in that definition too, because if I found a velociraptor, then it would logically follow that it didn't go extinct in the crustacean. This is a hypothetical, right, where I have a living velociraptor I can show you guys. It would logically follow they didn't go extinct then in the crustaceous, otherwise I wouldn't have one, right? Which would mean it wasn't the dinosaur by the definition previously provided, because you said it was the large reptilian creatures that went extinct during the crustaceous period. But right now as it stands, with me not having a velociraptor, you would consider that to be a dinosaur, right? So like if we find a raptor, a t-rex, a sauropod in the modern world, would that all of a sudden mean it wasn't definitionally a dinosaur anymore? We could potentially define it as dinosaurs are what is according to modern-day paleontology at this very moment right now, this minute, this second, regarded to have gone extinct within the crustacean area. And they're defined by the anatomy of those creatures during that time. Yes. There are many diagnostic characteristics that will qualify you as a dinosaur. Birds meet those, but again we're not talking about the bird survivors. Yeah, well and that's another one too that I think I could grant to you that a chicken was, I obviously, again I don't believe this, but I could grant it that a chicken is descended from dinosaurs and still have my position be true, right? Because obviously, you know, we believe that humans, modern scientists believe that humans and apes had split from a common ape-like ancestor in the past, but we obviously still have apes and you know you can just go to the local zoo and see a chimpanzee. Now obviously there's a, you know, mix up in that chimpanzees didn't evolve into humans according to the modern evolutionary theory, so that's not what I'm saying, but my point is just to say if we could just grant a lot of that stuff that typically comes with this argument. Let's say the earth is millions of years old, all the periods happen, evolution is true, the evolutionary chains we have of dinosaurs, the birds is true, all that being granted, you could still have that being granted and still have somebody or some creature, excuse me, from the clay dinosauria that actually existed in the modern world or even multiple, not modern world, but in the ancient world, I guess they wouldn't exist now. I prefer that to be true. I want there to be dinosaurs. So I want to try to satisfy your guys' answer the best I can. I've only been researching this topic fervently for three days now, so everything I've shown and I'm talking about, I figured out in the last three days, so I can just Professor Dave myself with the little spaceman and the Dunning-Kruger effect or whatnot, so I have to be careful with that. But to the best of my ability, answer your guys' question, I think that the two examples I gave fit what you are looking for as far as modern paleontology. Are they perfect and are they guaranteed to be depictions of dinosaurs? Probably not perfect and guaranteed, but I certainly don't think a chicken is a better explanation. So if we want to digress from that, that's fine. But I think both sides are being a little rigid. Well, it doesn't look like anything determinable. That's the point. It could be this, it could be that, it could be any of 10 things. Some of them don't even look like anything that's known. So it's under-determined. If we want to say that the Suits Indian painting, or hieroglyph for whatever it was, isn't fiction. If it's a fully fictional being, okay, so be it. But if it's not fiction, nothing that we see or have today really fits that. It doesn't look like an ox, it doesn't look like an alligator. But it does just happen to look like something that we have discovered is a modern dinosaur. It doesn't look very much like a dinosaur to me. And so writing on that point, like in going back to St. George with dragons being dinosaurs, the animal George is depicted as killing looks nothing like any known dinosaur or even like a pterosaur. So if eyewitnesses were so reliable, they're still not depicting any accurate dinosaurs or pterosaurs, which are the flying lizards. They're not actually dinosaurs, but they live, they're also extinct with dinosaurs. Is it possible that he killed a dinosaur that we've not yet discovered? Even a whole family group that we've not just discovered. Is that possible? I think your question kind of summarizes the entire problem with your argument is your entire premise. Well, but I let that on any evidence whatsoever is grounded on the right, but the point that I make is to believe it. Hold on. So yes, they're going to pull everyone into the corners. Yep. So sorry. I'm going to be brief. So yes, it is certainly possible and I hope it is the case, but that aside, it is possible, but artistic depiction is not enough evidence to determine that. That's it. That's our position. Yeah, exactly. I mean, is it possible that I have a toilet made of gold? Absolutely, but I don't. Sure. You can't prove it. One thing though, I want to point out with this. So I think first off, when you have these depictions that are not, you know, you say that they don't look like any known creature. Obviously, we were having some pushback in that me and Benjamin do believe that some of them depict certain preachers. But if you look at like the aforementioned lions that I was talking about, those Chinese lions that they usually build guarding temples and stuff of that nature. They don't really look like lions if you've actually like seen a photorealistic picture of what, right? But we do know that they're talking about lions because we have the different, you know, historical evidence that demonstrates that they were. They have highly exaggerated features a lot of times. A lot of times their bottom canines, for example, are just protruding ridiculously up to their kind of like a bulldog. But the point there is just to say like, we do know that artistic license exists, but that artistic license is being taken on an existing creature, right? But then also some of these depictions are a lot more unambiguous, I think, than is presented. So for example, in the, I think it's the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge is the government, but something over there in Cambodia. So it's big, huge, awesome, anchor watt. That's what it's called. Big, huge temple complex in Cambodia. Very beautiful, very ornate. It's got a picture of an animal that is surrounded by a bunch of other existing animals that looks like the spitting image of a stegosaurus. Or there's a. Have you heard the explanation that all the other animals also have leaves behind them that look exactly like the supposed stegosaurus back? I've heard them. I don't find them convincing though, because I have seen those other pictures, right? Like in other words, I've seen the other photos surrounding there. It does seem to me like these, this carving is representing plates coming out of the animal, dorsal plates that are actually coming out of the animal rather than. It also has a horn on its head, which stegosaurus did not have. Right. No, that's what I'm saying. I don't think there's any like problem with there being an error or two. That's why I bring out this sort of the lion example, right? Lion does very clearly artistically represent a lion, and yet at the same time, they're still going to be exaggerated features. When we look at something like this particular, what I think is a stegosaurus, if there's going to be a feature they might have gotten wrong, especially something small like a horn on the head. I mean, we have pictures of almost every creature with horns on their head. A lot of them don't have them. I mean, we have pictures of humans with horns on their head, right? How do you determine if it's a stylized depiction or an exaggerated depiction, or if it's just completely wrong, like with manatees being mistaken with mermaids? How would you determine if it really is stylized or if it's really a depiction of a dinosaur? Yeah, and I'd also like to add, how do you respond to the point I brought up within my opening statement that this correlation is not causation, and in fact, culture has influenced our understanding of what dinosaurs look like? Yeah, so culture does play a role, but the point of my opening was to show that we have such a vast array of cultures all showing similar resemblances. It can't just be a wall. This culture was influenced by this all over the world, all over time, totally different cultures. I was just saying maybe we can pull up a side by side again so we can go through the actual features. As far as the stylization question, to be honest, I think it's almost a constant thing for the ancients to either stylize in some way, and even for us today, to stylize something or to get a detail wrong. There's obviously photorealistic pictures. It's not like nobody has ever painted something real before. But for the most part, when you look at ancient paintings and ancient sculptors and stuff like that, there's always some level of artistic license, and that's just human nature, right? Nothing's changed in the 4,000 years since the earliest sculptures we found or however many tens of thousands of years they have. One moment, please. Sure. So you'd agree that there are false or fictional creatures that are depicted in art, right? Oh, certainly. I don't think there's a... I don't think, for example, there's any pre-existing version of griffins, although I guess you could argue eagles and lions, right? Because they put them together, which is a very common thing for them to try and do. But as far as an actual griffin, I don't think griffins exist. Hi. Here we have an ancient depiction or rather an artistic depiction of a woman turning into a tree while a god prevents that. And this was a common myth within ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Is it true? It's very true that the Greeks and the Romans were fanatical in the range of gods and beliefs. So again, if we were just talking Romans and Greeks, I'd be like, yeah, we're out of luck. But the problem is we can also jump over to Native Americans in a more modern sense. And we're still getting similar things even though they don't have a clue what the Greeks are talking about. And the other problem I would say here is... Native Americans also share the myth of people transforming via skinwalkers. That is another myth that is common across cultures. Does that make it true? People really transform? Skinwalkers? What is that? Skinwalkers, they are mythical creatures that can shape shift into, I believe, different people. But shape shifting is definitely a myth that you can find within multiple different cultural arenas. But the point that I'm trying to make, and I feel like we spent way too much time even arguing this, is that art is not fact and myths are not fact. We have scientifically proven factual evidence that you can't really refute and you're not really offering anything to counteract it. And that's why we're wasting so much time talking about art. Well, we're not just talking about art, though. We are talking about myths that the ancients thought to be true. Now you brought up this example of the woman turning into the tree. But not only is that not a ubiquitous myth like some of these other ones, but I'm also not arguing myth is 100% and I don't think Ben is either. The myth is 100% accurate. But I am arguing that the people at least believed it very often to be accurate. And we can very often see where it comes from, especially the more ubiquitous it gets. So in other words, there's more likelihood that a flood myth is based in reality than it is that myths of gnomes, for example, are based in reality because one is typically limited to Northern European cultures and the other seems to be found everywhere. There's a river. The other thing though, too, is again, we have art, we have myth, but we also have historical reference, like purely historical reference. Herodotus is a historian. Josephus is a historian. Marco Polo is a historian. The Bible very often is referencing history and it talks frequently of dragons and that's not even thinking about like behemoth or anything like that. So we do have historical record, mythological record and artistic depiction all at the same time. I think that I think it's very difficult to argue that away, honestly, like there has to be something that even if it isn't dinosaurs, although dinosaurs make sense, large reptilian megafauna in the myth and in the histories, large reptilian megafauna that we've actually found it seems like one and two does equal three. That being said, though, even if it wasn't that even if this is actually a one and two equals two situation, meaning I've got something wrong, it does seem like there still has to be some explanation for why there's ubiquitous reptilian megafauna legends throughout all of history. I'm going to challenge you to find a much more difficult explanation, which is why according to radiometric dating studies, there have never been any evidence whatsoever. In fact, there's been countless counter evidence that humans existed with dinosaurs and radiometric dating studies have proven to be accurate in several different cases with outside evidence supporting it and historical evidence supporting is accuracy. For example, dating the Mount Vesuvius eruption, the age of the meteorites, the and Pompeii and the Mansa meteorites. So these are things that we can actually quantify and support consistently. And there's no evidence whatsoever. Can you can you show us that all of that is completely worthless? Can you make us? I don't need to, because sealants are also not found anywhere in the historical record for hundreds of millions of years. And then we found them existing and living off of the coast of South Africa. So we do know that it's possible for animals to disappear from the taxonomic record. They actually have a term for it. It's called Lazarus tax. Can I jump in real quick? Insighting some paintings and myths of your evidence. That's it. Let me, CJ, I'm going to give it right back to you. I made a note actually on radiometric dating. I'm a little bit exhausted of that topic for the time being because Jordan in our last debate gave me reason to doubt. And so I'm still looking into it, pun intended. But to put a pin in the topic we're trying to digress from, I don't want to just let you guys kind of off the hook with the last word, saying we didn't really give you anything. Because the point that I was making is to say that you guys are, you guys are right in saying we can't just trust photo evidence or photo depictions. Yeah, I agree. The trouble is we have offered, I've offered specifically two photo depictions. And I'm sure there are far more out there of something that resembles, isn't perfect, but resembles what we know is in fact a modern dinosaur. So I'm giving you to a degree what you're asking for. And it doesn't seem like it's being given any credit. It'd be one thing if you said, Oh, well, that's a good point. But I don't trust it. But we're trying to completely sweep that point out of the rug. So I'm fine with digressing. But I do want to put we've given two examples in line with what you're asking us to give. So I would disagree because so we both agree monsters and creatures and art can be highly stylized or totally fictional. So the central premise and I think I'm just going to stick to this for the rest of the debate is how do we determine the difference between those stylized or fictional and those that are real depictions of eyewitnessing dinosaurs? How do we know the difference? So I think that could be fairly easy and pull it back to the point that I said, so we've got depictions of wolves depictions of man and depiction of Wolfman. We don't have any evidence for Wolfman, but we have evidence, modern evidence for Wolfman. So we can say, Okay, well, those depictions are accurate. In the same way, most of the lion headed dragons, what now we have no evidence for, but at least two of the things I presented to you guys, we do have evidence of something that looks very, looks very reasonably similar. Well, but we have evidence of large reptiles and evidence of bats and birds with wings. And dragons seem to be an amalgam of that. Well, not all the time, for example, there's unfantastic dragons like the French salamander again. Did some dragons actually have wings? I mean, people don't think bumblebees should be able to fly, but they do. I don't know how the dragon would work. But there's dragons like the French salamander. That's very well known. And that doesn't have wings. I think often they describe it as breathing fire. How could that work? No idea. I mean, things a bit acid, yeah, that could happen. But anyway, from a, from an appearance standpoint, if they just mildly hyperboleized it to say, Oh, it breathes fire to everything else is fully reasonable with things we know do in fact exist or did in fact insist. So that French salamander looks like a dog to me. I know it has scales, but it physically looks like a dog's head. And it's what we both you and I both showed that slide in our openings, the most common one at least. And it was the one I said looked more like a Komodo dragon or the Barry Onyx. But it's got like a super long neck. It doesn't look like Barry Onyx at all. Like maybe we can pull up a side by side. But to me, I'm not seeing any real similarity to anything that looks like a dinosaur. And again, again, how do you tell the difference between that being just a creature that's depicted in art and a creature that really existed? I think typically it's going to be something along the lines of context. So for example, the King George story is a story of King George going and slaying a creature, we know he existed, or I think it's Saint George, sorry. But you know, we know he existed, we know he took the journey. So the context of that story is well, and we know, I should say the context of that story is it's meant to reflect something people actually thought happened. So there we have an explicit example of at least the intention is to is to portray reality, right, rather than something that's fictionalized. Yeah, and it could have just been propaganda, trying to depict him as a dragon slayer, even he might not have even fought a crocodile of anything, it might have just been totally fabricated. It certainly could have, but I don't think that that is like it could be a lot of things, right, we kind of gotten that same thing on the opposite end, right? Yeah, that's why it's issue is undetermined. But the point that I'm making is they are not drawing tit for tat exactly what these things look like. And sure they could have been hyperbolicized to a degree in some cases, some I explained are explicit mythology. But the point that I'm making is, we have evidence for wolf, we have evidence for man, we have no evidence for wolf man, we can find rough paintings of both. If you just knew what a wolf looked like and you looked at a wolf painting, you'd say, it's probably a wolf, but not really in the same way, I'm saying it's fully reasonable that the French salamander is one of the things that I described probably, but not really the same way a wolf would be. We know, well, let me finish a wolf lizard. It looks like a Rorschach test, like you're just looking and interpreting it, however you feel is convenient. It looks like a wolf lizard to me. I agree to, that's the point, and that's why I'm okay with digressing. I agree with the Rorschach test point towards you guys. So I agree. I think we're at an impasse on this point, and I'm okay with that if we'd like to move on. And I would say, speak you on digressing, we have about 10 to 15 more minutes of open dialogue before we move into our Q&A. Keep on sending all of your questions by tagging me at Amy Newman in chat, but guys and gals, I'll hand it back over to you, get all of your questions out for each other. Yeah, I'd like to ask one quick question if possible. Sure. The logic that you're using, how is it any different if somebody was a believer in mermaids? What differentiates your arguments from somebody? And there are people, in fact, who do believe that mermaids exist for the exact same reasons that you believe that dinosaurs exist? Well, I would say that I think that there is, I would be kind of coy with the person who believed mermaids existed and say, you're kind of right, because I think we do know pretty clearly where they come from in the sense of, I think it's not just manatees, but it's likely that seals and other sorts of creatures like that have been the influence for what we call mermaids. And I think that would argue again, to the same kind of point I'm trying to make, which is that I think that these creatures are very often based, and even if they're a wild misunderstanding, because clearly a manatee is not a female attached to a big giant fish, perfectly fine, perfectly reasonable. But that creature that they saw did exist, they just wildly misinterpreted what it was. So now when I go back to that, when it comes to the dragon, that thing, it's like, okay, so we can grant that there could be some major error if they didn't get close looks, or if they weren't familiar with the animal, that's fair. But they still are seeing some thing. And they know what crocodiles are, they know what lizards are, they've seen these things before, and they're not depicting them as those things. Now we have evidence of large reptilian megafauna from all over the planet, right? That seems to be, I mean, if we have the legend, the history and the artistic license of large reptilian megafauna, or the artistic representation of large reptilian megafauna, and then we dig up large reptilian megafauna, that seems to me like it's at least reasonable to suggest this could be what they were seeing. Let me try to offer a concise answer to what psychology asked from how I took the question. So I just did a real quick search. Where did mermaids originate? The myth of the mermaid originated in Assyria 1,000 years ago. We can trace that. If you look up where dragons originated, not only can they not pinpoint it to a country, they mentioned several different continents, which means it doesn't pass the first reason that I gave was reasonable for dragons. Well, that's not necessarily true, as I've shown you before that there are hieroglyphic depictions of mermaids dating back as far as 30,000 BC. Right, I don't know how to resolve that with, well, I just found so. Just having depictions of monsters, again, is not enough, and they're all different. So we wouldn't necessarily expect them to all see the same dragons. In fact, we wouldn't expect them to. But again, there's just a reptile monster. So how do we tell if this is a fictional monster or a stylized real being? There doesn't seem to be any confirmation. So CJ, if you want to take Snake's point, let me jump right back to Psychology's point about the mermaids. How many cave paintings and cultures do you have recording the mermaids? I don't know how the timelines work out. I don't know why it says it's originating in Assyria if that actually came up, if your painting is actually from 30,000 BC. But it's not just that something's documented, it's that it's documented across a majority, if not all of cultures, throughout all of human documented time. Well, these specific cave paintings were found in Egypt, South Africa, and India. And given the timeline, it's extremely unlikely that immigration was the result of this. But in terms of ancient cultures, they have been found all over. They've been found in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, ancient Greece. Basically, they are quite ubiquitous in terms of their mythology. And they've also been found in Disney. A lot of those areas you said, at least the majority of those areas are all pretty close to each other. So I'm not sure that satisfies the... Are there any continents that are separated by water that have ancient documentation by that? And at this point, I'm just fleshing this out with you in the moment. I don't know what the answer is. You might be right, which I'll concede that to you. I'm not sure what the answer is for mermaids. But I'm not sure that it passes the test because you're going to have multiple cultures in a localized area that can all get the same thing too. And I'd like to reply by mentioning what Snake mentioned and what I also mentioned within my opening statement, that the fact that you can find it in different land areas, if you're trying to reference dinosaurs, could actually be going against your case because it's a lot more likely that dinosaurs be localized within a specific region rather than surviving in all regions at all times. But we know that's not true though from what we find archaeologically. We find dinosaurs all over the world, which means actually our theories supported by modern science. Well, allowing for the asteroid that hit the world for the dinosaurs to be able to survive that all at the same time, impossible. And the asteroid has been scientifically proven to have hit the world. Chubelix, yeah, the Chubelix meteor or asteroids, whatever, the one that landed near Mexico. Yeah, I know what you're referencing. I can't speak on that. I'm not sure how that all interacts. And see, this is where we have to be careful because we're coming from a young Earth creation standpoint and you guys aren't. And I'm trying to avoid getting terribly theological. So I'm going to digress from the asteroid point just so we don't get pulled into a whole separate topic. If you want to take that as conceding, that's fine, but I'm not going to go down the asteroid route. So I do want to answer Snake's question about like how we know that these are fictional. I think that I might have already said this, but I do think that it's the answer that suffices is number one, I do think that we have a scientific we do have scientific evidence of what it's very likely these animals could be at least I believe it's very likely these animals could be meaning what is that. So I think that we find not just dinosaurs, but of course, many large reptilian megafauna from that era and before, according to the paleontological record. I'll be right back. Certainly. What's the scientific evidence that these depicted animals are and I will say a fictional. Well, after you answer that, and as Benjamin starts to get back, we are going to move into the Q&A section. Thank you. Well, so I think that because the question is how do we know these depictions are not meant to be mythological, right? And I think that there's two things that are going for a stylized version of some other creature. Yeah, certainly. And I think there are two things that seriously go in the favor of thinking they're not the first one being that we know that creatures like these depicted creatures exist, namely dinosaurs and other large reptilian megafauna. There are no dinosaurs that resemble dragons at all. I don't think that's accurate. Other than large reptile, there are no similarities. See, I don't I don't think that that's true, though. I think there's a lot of depictions. I already, you know, we've already gone through a lot of them, of course. I understand that like the stegosaurus thing, we disagree on what exactly that is. But it is an example of one that I think is very clearly depicting. Sorry, I got some background. You know, there's also examples of creatures that look very much like sauropods. I know that there's been a figurine found, I believe in Mexico, that looks an awful lot like a protoceratops. Nephilim free has shown that one a couple times. So if you've debated him, you probably know specifically what I'm talking about. From a certain angle it does, but it actually has like two ears instead of a full crest. It's like separated in the middle. So he shows the angle that kind of hides that. And we can even go on with it. And I know so you're familiar. I don't want to get into that right now. Obviously, we'll get back to that probably because you'll probably bring it back up. But that's fine. But my point is just to say some of these, I think, very clearly do. And I think it even continues on into history. So for example, the Loch Ness creature, provided that such a thing does exist, it might not. But the Scottish have this myth. This myth looks like a plesiosaur. If Nessie exists, then yeah, that would be great evidence. Plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs, but the problem with using the same type of time period. But if you're using cryptids, you're basically using animals that you don't know exist to as examples of animals that you don't know exist. You're trying to prove that these animals existed using animals you don't know existed. Well, to be fair, that's sort of the issue with the whole thing. Because you guys wouldn't accept that dragons existed. So we're kind of, in a way, this is a cryptozoological argument to begin with. Not based on art. Art can't show that it existed. If you have bones, sure. Yeah, but dragons do exist. Bearded dragons, Komodo dragons. I don't know why you keep telling us that we don't believe dragons exist. We just don't think that they're the giant mythological creatures that you are calling dinosaurs. That's why I don't think that there's any solid evidence to suggest that those creatures are what is being depicted though. First off, Komodo dragons are in a very localized area, right? In the case of bearded dragons, I mean, they're practically harmless. There's nothing impressive about them from the perspective of like, oh, I slew a dragon. It's like, you know, I mean... Have you ever been bitten by one? I have, actually. I live in a zoo in my house, so I'm familiar with a lot of the pet animals, at least. We've also seen depictions of giants, like the basilis, giant spiders. These are common mythology to take small animals and make them huge. Yeah, but they're small threatening animals, right? Like snakes are incredibly threatening, and spiders as well. Lizards can be poisonous. Not a bearded dragon. Bearded dragon, we have in cages. We've had them in cages for, I think, like 2,000 years now. Amy, how much time do we have? Well, I would actually say that is a fantastic time to go into our Q&A, but if you guys would like to just go round Robin really quickly and give a closing statement as well as telling everybody what you got going on in the interwebs. Who should start? Well, the affirmative was normally the starter, so I'm going to hold them to it again. Okay. I don't have any social media or anything to plug. I guess as a closing, my whole point I tried to bring to the table for the debate was we do have reasonable historical evidence for dinosaurs and our dragons. And again, I don't see the big issue with the terminology intersecting there because of how recent the word dinosaur comes from. Anyway, I tried to avoid mythology. I tried to avoid religion. I tried to avoid anything that I could. So that I guess that can suffice as my closing. I thought it was a good discussion and I do apologize to the audience a little bit because I was one of the culprits. We did seem to get hung up in one area. I think it was really good discussion, but I'm sorry if I contributed to not being more diverse. And I'll go ahead and end by, so first off, I often like to quote Proverbs 27 when I end the debate. Theological or not, I think it's got some very interesting words for those of us who are interested in his pursuit of truth. So the book of Proverbs says in chapter 27 and verse number two, excuse me, to let someone else praise you and not your own mouth and outsider and not your own lips. So if anybody thought that there were good arguments provided and has constructive criticism in that direction, certainly do let me know. I appreciate that tremendously. Same book in the same chapter verse 17 says as iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. If you have constructive criticism because you thought I had bad arguments or bad presentation, then also please let me know. I am doing this for an honest pursuit of truth. And so I certainly appreciate anybody who has got any sort of criticism or critiques, any direction, so long as they're trying to be constructive about it and not insulting, which I think is very often what we have here. And I appreciate the community of debaters we have online. Snake CP, this was a great conversation. If you guys ever wanted to have a conversation again, definitely let me know. And yeah, just go ahead and let it, let it hold there. Thank you so very much from the affirmative. And then I'm going to hand it over to the negative. Please give us your final words and tell us what you got going on. All right, should I go first? Sure. So yeah, all this evidence under determines the issue. You can't tell the difference between mythological or exaggerated or just otherwise fictional reports of dragons and other monsters. And you can't tell the difference between those and real attempts at capturing real living dinosaurs are in itself can't provide good evidence of humans living alongside animals that are otherwise known to be extinct. You need to find actually find Nessie or forget the names of, you know, the rumored dinosaurs rumored to be roaming around the forests of Africa, or you need to find bones that can be dated to a human epoch. And none of that evidence exists to correlate to this art. So in and of itself, this is all in all likelihood just a fictional monster. And as far as my social medias goes as my channel sneak was right, I do tend to do religious philosophical type of things. And I also have a channel with cinematic psychology called debate cafe. And we're trying to put modern day debate out of business. No, but you can tell how threatened they are by our channel on their channel. So there they're obviously shaking in their boots. Should I go? Yeah, the floor is yours. Yeah, I would also like to conclude that I feel that this debate was very much focused on culture and mythology and didn't touch nearly as much as I would have liked on the science of the matter. And I feel like the fact that our opponents were unable to touch on the science of the matter is evidence of itself. Why snake and I won this debate. I think that snake and I did an excellent job casting doubt onto the concept of culture being evidence of art being evidence of artistic depictions being evidence. And our opponents entire arguments were based on speculation and asking the audience to take a leap of faith with them. And that is not a solid ground to stand on in terms of a position. That being said, I do want to thank our competitors for this discussion I felt like within the threshold that they remained in, they definitely spoke cleverly and with many good points. And I also want to thank them for being respectful and joining us in this debate. My channel is cinematic psychology and primarily on my channel I do media analysis. I'm really trying to figure out a new name because I started my name with the idea of doing movie analysis. So if you want to help me out come to my channel and comment on a new name that you think would be good for general media analysis. And yes, snake and I have a debate channel that we share and I am on it pretty regularly as a judge and judging people on their skills. So check it out. Thank you so very much. That's right. You should be checking all of our debaters. Links are in the description below. But with that we are going to move into 30-ish minutes of Q&A. So feel free to tag me with your questions at Amy Newman. But if you want your burning desire question move to the top of the list, then send in those super chats in fact $5 from our favorite stupid whore energy. Do these true legends include the story about the dragon blood tree that grew from the blood of a dragon? What taxa does this dragon tree belong? And I think that's for our affirmative. Yeah, I mean I'm not familiar with the legend. It's possible that the legend is derived from some real event. Obviously not the growing of the tree out of the ground. But perhaps there's some other context behind it. But I wouldn't know enough about the legend to say. I tend to err on the side of when people are telling these mythological stories, they are based in some reality. That doesn't mean that they are realities. So for just to give a great example of that I think that suffices. The Trojan War did happen. It's likely that it was Mycenaeans versus Trojans. It's even possible that Achilles really existed. But there's a whole bunch in the Iliad that would not be granted, for example, did the Trojan horse really happen? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, right? Did the Odysseus thing happen? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, right? Did the Aphrodite apple coming down that started the whole thing happen? Much more or much less likely than the rest of those other examples. But the point is just to say very often I think the core of these legends are true. Certainly not always. But you know, in this, excuse me, blood does not have sprouting trees out of it. So there is that too. If I can, I'll try to be as concise as I can. I do think that CJ and I have a slight difference in how we view things and I think that's okay. But I am much more quick, I think, to try to say this is legend and mostly purely legend and this is something that can be interpreted as more literal. It's more, more reasonably more literal. And the best parallel I can paint between, you know, pictures and different things in mythology is if you looked at a poetic novel versus a biography, they're both the same style in which they're presenting information, but one of them could be totally fictional or fanciful, whereas the other one could be quite real. They could even be roughly in the same topic and still covering a human's life. But one could be complete fiction. The other one could be completely real. So I think we need to be careful how quickly we are to throw out a obviously fictional situation and say, well, that means every painting and every piece of artwork of a dragon is also just that fictional. Thank you guys. And then a $20 super chat from Samaro Roe. Variation between dragons in Chinese versus European myth is more immense than any similar zoological phenomena, i.e. a Galapagos penguin versus an empire penguin. Pro team, how do you explain this variation? Actually, that's super simple. Go ahead. Actually, you can go first. Well, actually, I'll let you cover it. You might be concise. So go for it. Yeah, I would just say that, you know, the term dinosaur, I will first off in the colloquial sense, it tends to reference all those ancient animals that were big, large and reptilian. But in the more scientifically accurate sense, it is a specific clade, but you can have very, very drastic variation within a certain clade. I mean, you bring up the emperor penguin and a Galapagos penguin, but what about the emperor penguin and a flamingo? Or what about the excuse me, sort of lost the example that I was just going to give, but it was two different mammalian examples. That's sort of embarrassing, so my apologies. I think about like a, you know, the vast differences between a crocodile, you know, or a, you know, bearded dragon, and the et cetera, et cetera, right? So like when we have related animals that vary so drastically, I don't think that's necessarily that big of a problem. In fact, a really good example of that, because they're so close taxonomically, at least they were when I was learning as a kid. I don't know if they've discovered something that causes them to disagree with this, but people say horses and rhinoceros are very closely related. They look wildly different, right? So I just think that that can be explained very simply by these different species having, you know, different niches and things like that. And then if you want to respond to it. No, I'm pretty satisfied with that. In that case, $5 super chat from displacegamer explained the full, I'm trying to think if they wanted to stay extinction, okay, the full extinction of large dinosaurs while the flourish of humans. Also, where are the fossilized humans? I'll just honestly grant that I think that's a super interesting question and I've always wondered the same, why is there no fossilized hominids or at least modern anatomically modern, excuse me, humans? It's a great question. I don't have an answer for that. And can I ask, I actually believe that this is for the negative. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I think they are asking why aren't why don't we find many fossilized humans? Well, it seems like it's probably for the positive because it seems like they're asking why don't we find fossilized humans alongside the dinosaurs if because similar numbers of them would have been wiped out in the flood at similar times. So we should see dead humans and dead dinosaurs next to each other. Then I'm taken, sold. We're moving on then. A $5 chupor chat from A. Dragons, you are comparing to dinosaurs have six limbs, four legs, arms, and two wings. Can you name any fossil that this configuration of appendages? He named any fossil that has this configuration of appendages? No, and I would go back from my point from where I was coming from. There are definitely more fantastic renditions of dragons, but there's also less fantastic. So if that was the force of the person's argument, I would go back to the French salamander. Nothing really fantastic about that one. So that one's reasonable. Once again, throwing love to our household name, $5 from Stupid Horror Energy. Show me a detailed T-Rex in an ancient Nazca line and I'll believe that huge canvas and all we have is ducks and spiders. I did not follow that. So let me try again. So show me a detailed T-Rex in ancient Nazca line and I'll believe that huge canvas and all we have is ducks and spiders to make sure it is N-A-S-C-A line. Yeah, I guess I don't know what the point would be of that question because it seems to me like if you wouldn't accept the other renditions of art that we have right now, I don't know why another one at Nazca would make a difference. The only thing I can offer to that is like when we were talking about the wolf and the man, the wolf man, I mean find a perfect ancient drawing of a wolf. I think one reason we're so capable of having so much more detailed art today is one, we have far more refined materials to paint on for our cleaner and two, we have machines that can give us instruments to paint with that are I think probably far more precise than they used to be. I think that's the best answer I can give if the question was on how finely detailed a painting can be but I didn't, I don't think I may have answered that fully sufficiently. Thank you so very much Sundin Love and also a $5 Super Chat from Mark Reed. Why should theists get to choose which myths are historical based and which should just be considered fiction according to their religious beliefs? I don't think they should. Yeah, I'd agree. I don't think they should either. I think that that's, I think everything needs to be taken on its own merits. I actually even said earlier, I think that a lot of times when it comes to these legends, I tend to err on the side of there's probably a historical core here. Not everything of course. I don't think there's a historical core behind the dwelling on Mount Olympus but there's specific reasons, excuse me, that are unique to Mount Olympus that caused me to believe that. But for the most part, when we look at characters like the king who had the labyrinth in Crete or events like the Trojan War or figures like Moses or something like that, I tend to err on the side of there's probably some kind of historical core here even if the historical core is not always easily discernible. Sometimes it's more easily discernible than other times either because lack of exaggeration or more evidence that we have to the contrary or to prop it up or what have you. But no, I agree. Yeah, I think the difference in perspective Jay and I brought are good because he's bringing up points and whatnot from mythology that I just did not burst in. But I did intentionally avoid religion and mythology. So I don't mind that we had the counter perspectives but just my line of thinking, I didn't even bring religion into it. I think you're on mute, Amy. Oh, I have to do that at least once a podcast. Sending love, $5 Super Chat from Samar Farsane. Wine limit human existence to the oldest bones found. Oldest lions bones are only 62,000 years. Why limit the length of a dark space to the strength of our flashlight? That was a lot. So I think that might be for you guys. So it's not that we're limiting it there. It's just that if you don't have evidence of older fossils, then you can't say that we have evidence that they're older. So we can only account for the things that we have evidence of. We only have dinosaur fossils in a certain age range and we only have human fossils in a completely different separate age range. If the young earth creationist story of this were true, we should expect to find them in the same age range and we don't. But there are proto-lion fossils. So evolution, these, the populations are changing. So we do have fossilized felines. They're not exactly lions, but yeah. And all right, send and love. Another $5 Super Chat from Mark Reed. St. George died around 303 CE while the first painting was in the 11th century and paintings look very different. Why if their memories are so good? Well, if it's that far away, then yeah, I guess there's a gap there. I don't know, CJ might have something, but I'm a little, again, I pointed out I might be a little bit under Dunning Kruger and some of these things because I'm new to this. So I got to give credit where it's due. And if that's true, then we have to be a little more skeptical about St. George. Yeah, I think the St. George slew a dragon story is much older than any of those depictions though, would be my main point to that. In other words, the details that are going to be provided in that story of him slaying this dragon-like creature are going to come from much more closer to his time, more closer if it's not a proper way to speak, but you guys know what I mean, than the paintings themselves. You know, I would offer just the thought if they are that far away, depending on who's painting it, again, it seems to fit the criteria a lot of what we're seeing George fighting isn't something fantastically large, such as the one I showed. It could have been reasonable to what they knew as a dragon if they actually existed in that area and not actually what he slew. Might have slown an alligator. I'm trying to make it as reasonable as I can. I have to admit when I was arguing with Snake earlier, I thought we were discussing paintings that were happening very much within the event, like very close to the event. So if 1,100 years is the gap, then we need to re-analyze that. A long memory. Long life. Mathusa lived, you know, over 900 years, but I think 1100 years is really a stretch. Question $5 Super Chat from Samara Rowe again. To both teams, there was an extinction-level event that wiped the dinosaurs out. Question. If so, that was the nature of the event. Let me try that again because it's in the form of a question. To both teams, was there an extinction-level event that wiped the dinosaurs out? If so, what was the nature of that event? Just not my wheelhouse. I'm not very well versed in, you know, paleontology and things like that. From what I've read, I think they've, you know, I grew up they weren't really sure what it was. And I think there have been more and more confident studies that it was, in fact, a comet. There's like radiation or radioactive material that lines the extinction layer. And I think the Chicksalub, or I don't know how to pronounce it, crater is thought to have been that event. Yeah, Chicksalub is a big one. I don't really have anything to add. And I believe it is called the K-PG boundary. I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing that incorrectly, but it's very clearly defined within the layers of the Earth when this event happened. And there is an absolute clear distinction because of the minerals within the Earth that, you know, are traced back to that asteroid as well as the fossil records that happened before and after it. It's almost like a clear line. So the dinosaurs are very close to, they stop at that line, basically, is what we're saying. Except the ones that can fly. Oh, birds. And okay, sounds good. The chickens. Yes. The exceptionally beautiful chickens. Some of them are certainly are exceptional. See, we are finally coming to consensus on modern-day debate. Beautiful, beautiful chickens and a $20 super chat. Again, from tomorrow, sending love protein. Could you explain chemically how it would be possible for a large reptile to breathe fire? Animals with similar properties, i.e., the bombarder beetle, are specialized and their mechanism wouldn't work on a higher scale. I think we have to be careful with that because I think we're very used to things. So let's say we have a mechanism that works from little to big and we have both those things that exist right in front of us. But it's very easy to say, okay, well, that's how it works. But then we've got this example of the beetle where we see it existing on a small scale. We have no idea how it could exist on a big scale. But that just means that very much could mean we just don't understand how it could work on a big scale. But if it was right in front of us, obviously, we would know it worked. The beetle's a good example. I also mentioned things, spit acid, and if someone, you know, that seems kind of like a fantastic idea, ants that shoot acid out of their butt and whatnot. That seems fantastic. So I guess to wrap up my point, is it possible there were actually any creatures that had the ability to breathe fire or sulfur maybe? But I'm not banking on that. I think I'd lean more towards that's a little bit of hyperbole. And that's not every dragon is consistent with fire breathing. So I guess I'll CJ, if you want to add something. The only thing I'll add is just to say I don't think it would necessarily be relevant to the point, only because plenty of known animals do fictionalized mythologized things in different depictions of them. But we don't conclude then that the animal itself has, you know, no reason to exist. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm right by any stretch, but it does just mean that I don't think this suffices as an objection. So, you know, Pegasus, for example, there's no horses that fly to the best of our knowledge, but there is horses. And so, you know, I think that that's kind of an example to demonstrate if the creature does something that's, you know, fantastic or mythologically, you know, added, it doesn't mean the creature itself didn't exist. And $5 super chat from Samar Farsin horse mating donkey make a mule. The mule can't give birth. Mule is an evolutionary dead end. Were there other dead ends? Question mark, were dragons a dead end? Do they mean dragon as in dragon dragon or dinosaur dragon? In the sense that dinosaurs were not comet proof? Sure. Their evolution is all about your environment. So their environment was filled with comets. So only the avian dinosaurs actually were fit to survive that. So in a sense, yeah, dinosaurs were an evolutionary dead end for their environment. And to add onto that, I just kind of want to ask a question that I just feel hasn't been addressed is if that was the case that, you know, perhaps dragons lived with men and they mated with some sort of incompatible species in one extinct, why do we not have any evidence whatsoever of this? I really just want some explanation for that. Like bones? Exactly. Why do we have absolutely no fossil evidence of this occurring whatsoever? Is it a giant worldwide conspiracy? And if so, why? There's just so many missing links and assumptions and jumps that you'd have to make for this to be viable. So I don't know. Maybe I missed something with the whole sterile genetic line thing with the mules. With dragons in general, because I don't know the mule theory, like I'm not going to say anything on that. But in general, one of the points that I touched on was culturally, geologically, climately, all people to groups all across the world. There's dragons, which I'm also saying are dinosaurs because the term dinosaur came along much later. And then science backs it up because they're all over the world as well. They look different, but they're all dinosaurs. Dragons are depicted as looking different. They're all dinosaurs. So I'm not saying we have an exact science that lines up with the history, but it certainly looks reasonable. Nothing for the mule theory. Yeah, and I would argue an answer to CP's question. I don't think that, first off, I wouldn't accept the premise because I think the historical evidence is good evidence. But even as far as if you want to make it more specific, why don't we have scientific evidence of that? I would just say that I think that these sorts of things have happened in the past. And I do expect that we will one day find definitive scientific evidence that dinosaurs and man live together. The example I've given already is the silica, and I think it's a very good example. It just disappears outright from the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years. And yet, well, I guess a hundred million years likely, probably not hundreds because that would be going way too far back, but a very, very, very long time, it's just not there anymore. And then we find them and they're alive and they're just right off the coast and you can go see one if you'd like. And so we know that that kind of thing can happen. I suspect it likely will happen, again, in the sense that we'll probably find a dinosaur that we've dug up that either in the form of some fresh bone or some depiction that just can't be ignored or something like that. But the point is I think that we'll find something similar to that in the future. And guys, no, we got five more minutes. So if you got a super chat, now is the time to send it in, but send on the floor right back to you. Yeah, just real quick. I just wanted to make a note of CJ's basic explanation for that. I do feel contradicts Benjamin's argument that he put forth earlier about the fact that the dragons are found all across the world. So if Benjamin is correct, then CJ is very unlikely to be correct at the same time that these fossils just happened to be missing. So I do feel like your team is contradicting yourself here, because if they're so rare that we haven't found them yet, then it's very unlikely that they'd be found in all regions across the world. As your team has suggested, the dragon evidence proves. So I'm not sure whether the commenter was saying that maybe dragons are the result of modern reptiles hybridizing or something like that. And that's why they look weird. But again, we just we don't have any physical evidence, just art. And I don't think that's enough. I think that I think we need to call myth a myth, where it's obviously myth. I think the the negative team is a little harsh on historical evidence because art counts is that you need to need to be careful with that. But as I've said, there are several areas where I've shown that some of the art has lined up with some of very modern science. Crud, I was getting at something else and I just answered it a while. Well, we have actually a follow up from Samir, which is to build Stonehenge humans must have domesticated and use the help of much larger and stronger animals to stand those giant rocks. Why not dinosaurs? Pyramids too, probably. I mean, I don't know if there's any evidence that we ever domesticated dinosaurs. But you know, it is possible that some large creatures were domesticated in the past. But I think that's just pure speculation, I think. I think that I assume that comment was more sarcastic than real, like the question. But if I'm wrong, I don't have anything. I don't follow that. Or I don't agree that that was what happened. Sorry, it's late. I'm losing it. And I will add that. You're muted, Amy. Yep, you're all good. I will add that the there are Seelacanth specimens about 100,000 years old, so it's not they're not separated necessarily by millions of years. Just a little little aside. I appreciate that, actually. That makes it, you know, that corrects it, right? I want to make sure I'm giving correct information. So I appreciate you correcting me there. Is it? We'd want to look into that more. But if it's if it goes from like 80 million to 100,000, 100,000, definitely peanuts compared to 80 million. But maybe there's more stair steps. I just don't want that point to carry more weight than it's due. It is a good point. But 100,000 compared to 100 million is not much. Yeah, I mean, we don't expect all fossils to be preserved by any means. But we should expect to find some humans preserved with dinosaurs if they all died in a flood. Well, and I just want to add to I do think that we will. I know that's that's a, you know, an idea that I have that I can't like prove that scientifically, right? So that's fair. You can you reject that idea. But because I think the historical evidence is good, I think it's likely we'll have scientific evidence that solid that solidly backs it up at some point. Oh, wait, to be clear, I'm not arguing. And at least at this point, I don't hold the position that all dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood because we can't be talking about Marco Polo and St. George interacting with dragons, quote unquote, dinosaurs, if they're wiped on the flood. So I haven't been arguing that position at all. I try not to bring the flood into it. I think that dragons could have existed fairly modern or up to fairly modern times as in well post Jesus. Yeah, nor all humans either. But most, most, I think, were wiped out in the flood, right? I'll accept age. Yeah. It's a lot. And all right. It looks like we got a $1.49 super sticker from Woody Woodpecker, sending in a unicorn. Send in love, Wookie. Wookie. Woody, that is a fabulous super sticker. And it looks like we're going to bring it in closing with three of our last super chats because we want to respect our debaters time. We thank them for spending a few hours with us tonight. But Samir Farsin coming in hot $5 super chat. Not true that no dinosaur resembles a dragon. Most dinosaur depictions and illustrations are based off a single jaw bone, toe bone, or tooth found. Sounds like that's probably for the negative side, I think. Yeah, for sure. I think that kind of actually supports the point that I'm trying to make or I've been trying to make for a while, which is that how we understand what a dinosaur look like is extremely fluid. And once again, I do believe that our depictions of dinosaurs over time, which I have shown have changed drastically, have been influenced prior by art and not the other way around. Because we've already had this art when we discovered these fossils and they've influenced our vision of what these animals look like, which have been proven incorrect as we've discovered more about them. Yeah, and going on the just fossil fragments. So usually they're only speculating on what the rest of the body looks like based on similarity to a different dinosaur that's more complete. But even in that case, we wouldn't know what the dinosaur looked like. So we couldn't confirm either way, whether it looks like a dragon or not. This is interesting. That sounds like you're not critiquing fossils in the same way you're critiquing the memory of the people who witness the Saint George saying, and obviously we've blown the Saint George thing up. But those seem like we're giving giving with one hand and taking with another with how much will credit partial memory or information. Well, yeah, I mean, if you find a dinosaur that's mostly complete, and then you find a knuckle bone that or like part of a hand that's very similar in every way, I think it's reasonable to say, okay, this probably is of the same or similar species, especially if it has like unique features on it. Yeah, and I did. I was looking for my copy of Oh, nice. I found it. Yeah, you guys right there. You just blew our entire case with that book. I mean, I was just pretending the whole time. Got to bring on my props. And all right, moving right along another $2 super chat from Samir Farsin. If dragons burp methane, spark teeth could light. They have to have a interesting makeup of their teeth to spark. I mean, it's that sure. I'm not totally backing dragon flames as is, but I don't know how you get sparking teeth. You'd have to have teeth that spark. Man, I am just insightful when I am. I think it's just a joke to be honest. It just sounds like a joke to me. I wasn't sure. We got one coming in early, and then I'll leave one at the on topic from Ian Chan, official 299. Why archaeopretics catch the worm? It's an early bird. Is that my chance? Archaeopteryx? Why the archaeopteryx catch the worm? It's an early bird. Excuse me. That is funny. That's a good joke. I like that. Oh, sending love to Ian. It probably would have been better if I didn't butcher the pronunciation. However, we are going to finish it off with our last question of the night from Displaced Gamer. Can they explain why we don't have supersized humans on average, whereas we do with dinosaurs based on the climate that was available at the time? Who's that for? I believe, once again, it's just my interpretation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they want to know if dinosaurs were so big back then, how come humans are not big right now? That seems to be what they're asking. I'll read it again because I don't want to straw man anyone. From Displaced Gamer, can they explain why we don't have supersized humans on average, whereas we do with dinosaurs based on the climate that was available at the time? Yeah, I don't know that. So as far as the mechanisms to explain it, I couldn't, but as far as is it possible for us to have outside of what we believe to be the climate of the crustaceous and Triassic and all that, these incredibly large megafauna, I think the answer to that would be yes. I know that's not directly the question that was asked, but we certainly have massive creatures after the age of the dinosaurs. Not just water creatures like Blue Whales, but there's also gigantic sloth whose name fleets me. There's a gigantic hornless rhino that's like, man, I shouldn't actually give the numbers because it's another one that it's fleeting, but you guys, if you're familiar with not even the different things we see in fiction like Ice Age and the Flintstones, where they depict a lot of these creatures, but even just if you're familiar with paleontology, we have mammoths and woolly rhinos and stuff like the American lions, which are like three times the size of a modern African lion. We do have examples of incredibly large megafauna that developed with anatomically modern human, even in mainstream science. So I don't know if it would necessarily suffice to say we don't know why humans haven't gotten that big, you know, but we do know that these megafauna do exist in times when humans are accepted to have lived. Yeah, I would say that's a good point, CJ. I think giant humans would have knee problems just anatomically. So like things like Game of Thrones, is it actually good they have like trunk like elephant like feet depicted in that show? So I don't know if there actually is a reason other than that, but I guess the question could equally go against like why is there a separation between smaller-sized populations of animals and larger ones, but I think CJ made a good point against that. This is just kind of actually something I was thinking about regarding giants. There is a champion level arm wrestler, I think his nickname is Popeye Joe, and he was born with genuinely abnormally large just strong arms. It's not elephantitis, it's not anything, and I mean, he's alive. You can watch YouTube videos of him wrestling and his hand just engulfs other people's hands, and they are fully functional, fully normal, no problems. Doctors were like we don't know why this happened, but you're good to go. And so it's just cases like that where I wonder is it totally unreasonable to think that somebody's whole body could be that way. Obviously I'm extrapolating from what we've got, but you would think like Snake just said oh well if they're big they're probably gonna have joint pain, and then we have things like elephantitis which cause issues, but then we've also got this guy who looks like he should have all those symptoms, but then he's perfectly fine arm wrestler. You're muted. Okay, you're wrong. I have to do it three times during a debate. Three times a charm. That's right. We have to pull a trinity here. I do want to thank- It's a new day. It's a new day. I do want to thank all of you here for joining us on modern day debate. We are in fact a neutral platform welcoming everybody from all walks of life. If you're looking for even more fantastic debates in the future, please don't forget to like and subscribe including tonight's debate on did dinosaurs live with man with our debaters cj and benjamin verse cinematic psychology and snake was right plus if you like what any of our guests have said all of their links are in the description below and if you're looking for even more fun after the show there will be an after party on the mdd discord plus don't miss our debate tomorrow as an atheist verse of muslim go toe to toe with that i am amy newman with modern day debate we hope you keep on having fantastic discussions talks and debates good night everyone