Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Fairy Tales

RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 1:01:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Bible refers to what we would call today.....dragons. The book of Job even refers to a dragon like beast that apparently breathes fire which doesn't help the fairy tale references to the Bible that are often made. So even if evolutionists don't deny the possibility of dinosaurs living at the same time as humans, and maybe dragons were what humans called dinosaurs at the time, the fire breathing dragon would just be a product of the imagination that somehow made it's way into folklore. And of course made it's way into the Bible, thus rendering the Bible akin to a fairy tale.

Something to consider.

Evolutionists believe there were these odd human like creatures given a scientific term....common ancestors. If someone today saw one in a forest, they might probably call it a monster. Now just like fire breathing dragons, we've never seen one. They do, in similar fashion, make for good sci-fi flicks (the prehistoric man found in modern times theme), and of course....The Planet Of The Apes (almost a cinematic commercial for evolution). But...because of the changes in life that theoretically could occur through long periods of time, this otherwise fictional character is literally considered fact.

If the Bible never made any reference whatsoever to dragons, would the idea of dinosaurs that could breathe fire (something theoretically possible) be that outrageous?

To be fair, it could be said that common ancestors lead to legends like ogres. Or who knows, maybe even trolls, leprechauns, and.....fairies? I would however challenge that simply because the absence of any negative references to common ancestors like the Neanderthals (who I believe were 100% human) that cohabitated with man.

But again, would the idea of dinosaurs capable of breathing fire really be that outrageous if there were no mention of dragons in the Bible? Wouldn't the ability for some dinosaurs to breathe fire even fit well within the theory of evolution?
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 1:32:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Though it would be awesome if there were (and I'd have a new favorite dinosaur)

I don't think it's very plausible that there were any fire-breathing dinosaurs.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 2:13:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 1:01:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The Bible refers to what we would call today.....dragons. The book of Job even refers to a dragon like beast that apparently breathes fire which doesn't help the fairy tale references to the Bible that are often made. So even if evolutionists don't deny the possibility of dinosaurs living at the same time as humans, and maybe dragons were what humans called dinosaurs at the time, the fire breathing dragon would just be a product of the imagination that somehow made it's way into folklore. And of course made it's way into the Bible, thus rendering the Bible akin to a fairy tale.

Something to consider.

Evolutionists believe there were these odd human like creatures given a scientific term....common ancestors. If someone today saw one in a forest, they might probably call it a monster. Now just like fire breathing dragons, we've never seen one. They do, in similar fashion, make for good sci-fi flicks (the prehistoric man found in modern times theme), and of course....The Planet Of The Apes (almost a cinematic commercial for evolution). But...because of the changes in life that theoretically could occur through long periods of time, this otherwise fictional character is literally considered fact.

If the Bible never made any reference whatsoever to dragons, would the idea of dinosaurs that could breathe fire (something theoretically possible) be that outrageous?

To be fair, it could be said that common ancestors lead to legends like ogres. Or who knows, maybe even trolls, leprechauns, and.....fairies? I would however challenge that simply because the absence of any negative references to common ancestors like the Neanderthals (who I believe were 100% human) that cohabitated with man.

But again, would the idea of dinosaurs capable of breathing fire really be that outrageous if there were no mention of dragons in the Bible? Wouldn't the ability for some dinosaurs to breathe fire even fit well within the theory of evolution?

I'll give you that it is possible for dragons to have existed. Whether they could breathe fire or not is speculation, but I'll overlook this. However, that does not explain references to unicorns, cockatrice, giants, nephilim, leviathan, or behemoth which are rather fairy tale-ish, and that is leaving out the creatures referred to in Daniel and Revelation (which are generally considered to be metaphorical).
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 2:45:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 2:13:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/19/2014 1:01:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The Bible refers to what we would call today.....dragons. The book of Job even refers to a dragon like beast that apparently breathes fire which doesn't help the fairy tale references to the Bible that are often made. So even if evolutionists don't deny the possibility of dinosaurs living at the same time as humans, and maybe dragons were what humans called dinosaurs at the time, the fire breathing dragon would just be a product of the imagination that somehow made it's way into folklore. And of course made it's way into the Bible, thus rendering the Bible akin to a fairy tale.

Something to consider.

Evolutionists believe there were these odd human like creatures given a scientific term....common ancestors. If someone today saw one in a forest, they might probably call it a monster. Now just like fire breathing dragons, we've never seen one. They do, in similar fashion, make for good sci-fi flicks (the prehistoric man found in modern times theme), and of course....The Planet Of The Apes (almost a cinematic commercial for evolution). But...because of the changes in life that theoretically could occur through long periods of time, this otherwise fictional character is literally considered fact.

If the Bible never made any reference whatsoever to dragons, would the idea of dinosaurs that could breathe fire (something theoretically possible) be that outrageous?

To be fair, it could be said that common ancestors lead to legends like ogres. Or who knows, maybe even trolls, leprechauns, and.....fairies? I would however challenge that simply because the absence of any negative references to common ancestors like the Neanderthals (who I believe were 100% human) that cohabitated with man.

But again, would the idea of dinosaurs capable of breathing fire really be that outrageous if there were no mention of dragons in the Bible? Wouldn't the ability for some dinosaurs to breathe fire even fit well within the theory of evolution?

I'll give you that it is possible for dragons to have existed. Whether they could breathe fire or not is speculation, but I'll overlook this. However, that does not explain references to unicorns, cockatrice, giants, nephilim, leviathan, or behemoth which are rather fairy tale-ish, and that is leaving out the creatures referred to in Daniel and Revelation (which are generally considered to be metaphorical).

Add satyrs to that list.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 7:08:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 1:32:38 PM, mortsdor wrote:
Though it would be awesome if there were (and I'd have a new favorite dinosaur)

I don't think it's very plausible that there were any fire-breathing dinosaurs.
Why wouldn't it be plausible?

I'm sure you would agree that it would be practical, like as a means of defense.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 7:45:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 2:13:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/19/2014 1:01:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The Bible refers to what we would call today.....dragons. The book of Job even refers to a dragon like beast that apparently breathes fire which doesn't help the fairy tale references to the Bible that are often made. So even if evolutionists don't deny the possibility of dinosaurs living at the same time as humans, and maybe dragons were what humans called dinosaurs at the time, the fire breathing dragon would just be a product of the imagination that somehow made it's way into folklore. And of course made it's way into the Bible, thus rendering the Bible akin to a fairy tale.

Something to consider.

Evolutionists believe there were these odd human like creatures given a scientific term....common ancestors. If someone today saw one in a forest, they might probably call it a monster. Now just like fire breathing dragons, we've never seen one. They do, in similar fashion, make for good sci-fi flicks (the prehistoric man found in modern times theme), and of course....The Planet Of The Apes (almost a cinematic commercial for evolution). But...because of the changes in life that theoretically could occur through long periods of time, this otherwise fictional character is literally considered fact.

If the Bible never made any reference whatsoever to dragons, would the idea of dinosaurs that could breathe fire (something theoretically possible) be that outrageous?

To be fair, it could be said that common ancestors lead to legends like ogres. Or who knows, maybe even trolls, leprechauns, and.....fairies? I would however challenge that simply because the absence of any negative references to common ancestors like the Neanderthals (who I believe were 100% human) that cohabitated with man.

But again, would the idea of dinosaurs capable of breathing fire really be that outrageous if there were no mention of dragons in the Bible? Wouldn't the ability for some dinosaurs to breathe fire even fit well within the theory of evolution?

I'll give you that it is possible for dragons to have existed. Whether they could breathe fire or not is speculation, but I'll overlook this. However, that does not explain references to unicorns, cockatrice, giants, nephilim, leviathan, or behemoth which are rather fairy tale-ish, and that is leaving out the creatures referred to in Daniel and Revelation (which are generally considered to be metaphorical).
Well getting back to the dragons (dinosaurs) breathing fire, imagine if not only the Bible never mentioned dragons, but there was also a verse in Genesis that read "and no living creature, that flies, that is four-legged, lives in the sea, or creeps along the ground, shall have fire come forth from the mouth. Imagine the heyday Bible skeptics would have with that one.

As far as the Leviathan and Behemoth, these were what I was referencing in Job. These would be names for dinosaurs just as a dragon would be.

As far as the unicorn, without getting too much into it at least at this point, even Isaac Asimov, an atheist, understood that the Biblical reference to the unicorn is not referring to the mythical magical horse with a horn protruding from it's head. And it's the same principle with the cockatrice and satyr. The early authors of Hebrew and English didn't have technical names for certain creatures. Keep in mind, there's no reference to magic, or half-human characteristics. Keep in mind that the ancient Hebrew language is very difficult for even early historians closer to that time period. Also keep in mind that we use terms today for people that are not technical terms either. For instance, what would you think if someone told you their neighbor's high school kids were goths or vampires? Would you think they were time travelers from the gothic era of Europe? Or ratherkids who dressed in black with white face paint? Or, kids who have to sleep in a coffin during the day, need to drink human blood to survive, void of mirror images, can literally fly? Or rather kids who like to stay out late, avoid eating so they can look pale, wear capes, etc.?

As far as giants go, some common ancestors are not only speculated to be shorter than humans (thus my reference to trolls, leprechauns, fairies, etc.), but some are speculated to range from around 8 feet to 9 feet tall.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 7:50:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 1:32:38 PM, mortsdor wrote:
Though it would be awesome if there were (and I'd have a new favorite dinosaur)

I don't think it's very plausible that there were any fire-breathing dinosaurs.

The length of the breathing tract and the amount of air needed to support the beasts does make it plausible that the speed and compresson of the gasses being expelled could result in flames. This is old stuff. It cannot be proved as it cannot be observed, any more than can be observed a dinosaur changing into a bird. There is much more circumstancial evidence to suggest it is possible there actually were fire breathing dragons than there is evidence of dinosaurs changing into birds. You have to believe in a lot of things that have never been seen and never will be observed before you can believe dinosaurs turned into birds, or life emerged out of non-life, or cows turned into whales as they somehow managed to elude the sharks while they learned how to swim.....If you serioiusly consider what is plausible, evolution is a joke.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 7:55:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 1:01:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

To be fair, it could be said that common ancestors lead to legends like ogres. Or who knows, maybe even trolls, leprechauns, and.....fairies? I would however challenge that simply because the absence of any negative references to common ancestors like the Neanderthals (who I believe were 100% human) that cohabitated with man.

Yep.....tribes like the pygmies in Australia leave skeletons which would be declared as another missing link if the pygmies were not hobbling around as proof that they are fully human. All or most of the "missing links" such as Lucy were found to be frauds of evolutionary "scientists" who were hungry for fame and desparately clinging to their hope of getting rid of God so they can believe nobody is there to say anyting they do has eternal consequences for the doer.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:01:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 1:32:38 PM, mortsdor wrote:
Though it would be awesome if there were (and I'd have a new favorite dinosaur)

I don't think it's very plausible that there were any fire-breathing dinosaurs.

It may be plausible, given the presence of electric discharge eels.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:09:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 7:50:17 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/19/2014 1:32:38 PM, mortsdor wrote:
Though it would be awesome if there were (and I'd have a new favorite dinosaur)

I don't think it's very plausible that there were any fire-breathing dinosaurs.

The length of the breathing tract and the amount of air needed to support the beasts does make it plausible that the speed and compresson of the gasses being expelled could result in flames. This is old stuff. It cannot be proved as it cannot be observed, any more than can be observed a dinosaur changing into a bird. There is much more circumstancial evidence to suggest it is possible there actually were fire breathing dragons than there is evidence of dinosaurs changing into birds. You have to believe in a lot of things that have never been seen and never will be observed before you can believe dinosaurs turned into birds, or life emerged out of non-life, or cows turned into whales as they somehow managed to elude the sharks while they learned how to swim.....If you serioiusly consider what is plausible, evolution is a joke.

And there is even more circumstantial evidence that the gods of all the Mythological pantheons existed, too.

Your failure to understand how evolution works is not a rebuttal to it. ;) 300 million years worth of the planet rotating on its axis, higher tides, continental drift, and you think everything hopped of the mold as God minted it? Or that proverbially hitting the reset button after the flood would bring it back to the diversity we see today?

To me, the joke is not understanding how the world around you works, and immediately pointing to a invisible all powerful creator from another dimension. The extra knee slappers come from when and why you think He would then care about you so much, with quite literally no evidence in which to back that assertion up. If you consider evolution to be shoddy, please explain how your story of creation has ANY reason to it at all.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:09:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:01:56 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 11/19/2014 1:32:38 PM, mortsdor wrote:
Though it would be awesome if there were (and I'd have a new favorite dinosaur)

I don't think it's very plausible that there were any fire-breathing dinosaurs.

It may be plausible, given the presence of electric discharge eels.

they would need a gas delivery system and a large enough electrical discharge to ignite the gas...

pretty implausible... IMO

Add'l electrical eels operate in the Water for a reason...
doubtful that an electric eel like creature would evolve a gas delivery system to shoot fire, no?
lol

no reason to think that ever happened, the simpler explanation is that dragons make a good story.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:24:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:09:54 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:01:56 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 11/19/2014 1:32:38 PM, mortsdor wrote:
Though it would be awesome if there were (and I'd have a new favorite dinosaur)

I don't think it's very plausible that there were any fire-breathing dinosaurs.

It may be plausible, given the presence of electric discharge eels.

they would need a gas delivery system and a large enough electrical discharge to ignite the gas...

pretty implausible... IMO

Add'l electrical eels operate in the Water for a reason...
doubtful that an electric eel like creature would evolve a gas delivery system to shoot fire, no?
lol

no reason to think that ever happened, the simpler explanation is that dragons make a good story.

Noted. But suppose I were to design a dragon the method of combustion you've proposed would be bested by merely mixing combustible chemicals.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:26:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:24:09 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:09:54 AM, mortsdor wrote:
no reason to think that ever happened, the simpler explanation is that dragons make a good story.

Noted. But suppose I were to design a dragon the method of combustion you've proposed would be bested by merely mixing combustible chemicals.

sounds good... maybe one shoots through his nose, the other his throat...

I'll keep that in mind for when I'm creating dragons.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:38:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 7:45:41 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/19/2014 2:13:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/19/2014 1:01:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The Bible refers to what we would call today.....dragons. The book of Job even refers to a dragon like beast that apparently breathes fire which doesn't help the fairy tale references to the Bible that are often made. So even if evolutionists don't deny the possibility of dinosaurs living at the same time as humans, and maybe dragons were what humans called dinosaurs at the time, the fire breathing dragon would just be a product of the imagination that somehow made it's way into folklore. And of course made it's way into the Bible, thus rendering the Bible akin to a fairy tale.

Something to consider.

Evolutionists believe there were these odd human like creatures given a scientific term....common ancestors. If someone today saw one in a forest, they might probably call it a monster. Now just like fire breathing dragons, we've never seen one. They do, in similar fashion, make for good sci-fi flicks (the prehistoric man found in modern times theme), and of course....The Planet Of The Apes (almost a cinematic commercial for evolution). But...because of the changes in life that theoretically could occur through long periods of time, this otherwise fictional character is literally considered fact.

If the Bible never made any reference whatsoever to dragons, would the idea of dinosaurs that could breathe fire (something theoretically possible) be that outrageous?

To be fair, it could be said that common ancestors lead to legends like ogres. Or who knows, maybe even trolls, leprechauns, and.....fairies? I would however challenge that simply because the absence of any negative references to common ancestors like the Neanderthals (who I believe were 100% human) that cohabitated with man.

But again, would the idea of dinosaurs capable of breathing fire really be that outrageous if there were no mention of dragons in the Bible? Wouldn't the ability for some dinosaurs to breathe fire even fit well within the theory of evolution?

I'll give you that it is possible for dragons to have existed. Whether they could breathe fire or not is speculation, but I'll overlook this. However, that does not explain references to unicorns, cockatrice, giants, nephilim, leviathan, or behemoth which are rather fairy tale-ish, and that is leaving out the creatures referred to in Daniel and Revelation (which are generally considered to be metaphorical).
Well getting back to the dragons (dinosaurs) breathing fire, imagine if not only the Bible never mentioned dragons, but there was also a verse in Genesis that read "and no living creature, that flies, that is four-legged, lives in the sea, or creeps along the ground, shall have fire come forth from the mouth. Imagine the heyday Bible skeptics would have with that one.

This would be consistent with reality, although a little weird we need a rule to state the obvious. You might as well have a rule to state the sky will be blue.

As far as the Leviathan and Behemoth, these were what I was referencing in Job. These would be names for dinosaurs just as a dragon would be.

Well, the behemoth could describe a dinosaur, but I'm not sure how this helps you since there has never been human and dinosaur fossils found in the same strata that I am aware of, nor have they been dated to the same period. The leviathan is a massive serpentine creature that can breath fire, and according to psalms 74 it has two heads. I dont believe it is an issue of mislabeled beasts in every instance. The leviathan is a good example of that. The only place we can find any evidence of a two headed massive serpentine creature that can breathe fire is in stories of myth and legend. Why would you completely dismiss critical thinking because this creature is mentioned in the Bible?

As far as the unicorn, without getting too much into it at least at this point, even Isaac Asimov, an atheist, understood that the Biblical reference to the unicorn is not referring to the mythical magical horse with a horn protruding from it's head. And it's the same principle with the cockatrice and satyr. The early authors of Hebrew and English didn't have technical names for certain creatures. Keep in mind, there's no reference to magic, or half-human characteristics. Keep in mind that the ancient Hebrew language is very difficult for even early historians closer to that time period. Also keep in mind that we use terms today for people that are not technical terms either. For instance, what would you think if someone told you their neighbor's high school kids were goths or vampires? Would you think they were time travelers from the gothic era of Europe? Or ratherkids who dressed in black with white face paint? Or, kids who have to sleep in a coffin during the day, need to drink human blood to survive, void of mirror images, can literally fly? Or rather kids who like to stay out late, avoid eating so they can look pale, wear capes, etc.?

I would have to go back and re-read those sections mentioning these creatures. I don't remember how they were used, and I am on my phone now.

As far as giants go, some common ancestors are not only speculated to be shorter than humans (thus my reference to trolls, leprechauns, fairies, etc.), but some are speculated to range from around 8 feet to 9 feet tall.

I'll need to re-read these sections also to be sure the giants are not super sized (which is generally how I understand giant), and I admit in this day and age we do call tall or large people "giants". (Andre the giant for example).
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 11:11:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 7:55:00 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/19/2014 1:01:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


To be fair, it could be said that common ancestors lead to legends like ogres. Or who knows, maybe even trolls, leprechauns, and.....fairies? I would however challenge that simply because the absence of any negative references to common ancestors like the Neanderthals (who I believe were 100% human) that cohabitated with man.


Yep.....tribes like the pygmies in Australia leave skeletons which would be declared as another missing link if the pygmies were not hobbling around as proof that they are fully human. All or most of the "missing links" such as Lucy were found to be frauds of evolutionary "scientists" who were hungry for fame and desparately clinging to their hope of getting rid of God so they can believe nobody is there to say anyting they do has eternal consequences for the doer.
I agree. I think the Bible is held to 2 standards. One being the standard of truth for us Christians, that what is stated in His Word is true; the other standard is that if the Bible states it, there must be a flaw somewhere. I think many skeptics including scientists work from that latter angle. And as you indicated, the implications of Biblical accuracy is dangerous because they lead to accountability.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 11:30:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 9:38:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 7:45:41 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/19/2014 2:13:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/19/2014 1:01:02 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Well getting back to the dragons (dinosaurs) breathing fire, imagine if not only the Bible never mentioned dragons, but there was also a verse in Genesis that read "and no living creature, that flies, that is four-legged, lives in the sea, or creeps along the ground, shall have fire come forth from the mouth. Imagine the heyday Bible skeptics would have with that one.

This would be consistent with reality, although a little weird we need a rule to state the obvious. You might as well have a rule to state the sky will be blue.

Quite frankly, I think the fact that cows emit methane gas would be used to discredit such a claim, if the Bible had made it. Adding the many testimonies worldwide of dragons breathing fire suggesting these could be dinosaurs minus the technical name we've applied, and the bombardier beetle's hot chemicals it shoots out (albeit from the other end) to fuel the flame.

As far as the Leviathan and Behemoth, these were what I was referencing in Job. These would be names for dinosaurs just as a dragon would be.

Well, the behemoth could describe a dinosaur, but I'm not sure how this helps you since there has never been human and dinosaur fossils found in the same strata that I am aware of, nor have they been dated to the same period. The leviathan is a massive serpentine creature that can breath fire, and according to psalms 74 it has two heads. I dont believe it is an issue of mislabeled beasts in every instance. The leviathan is a good example of that. The only place we can find any evidence of a two headed massive serpentine creature that can breathe fire is in stories of myth and legend. Why would you completely dismiss critical thinking because this creature is mentioned in the Bible?

I don't dismiss critical thinking. I would say historical written testimony, and historical pictures of what bear strong similarity to dinosaurs supports the Bible in this regard. If you saw an ancient picture on a cave wall of what looked like a dinosaur, wouldn't that cause you to wonder? And quite frankly, if this wasn't a Bible related controversy, I don't think too many people would have a problem with the concept of dinosaurs living at the same time. Just try to imagine if the Bible never existed. Don't you think people would be more open to other avenues that contradict the etched-in-stone, end-of-story, case-closed theme of evolution representing fact?

As far as the unicorn, without getting too much into it at least at this point, even Isaac Asimov, an atheist, understood that the Biblical reference to the unicorn is not referring to the mythical magical horse with a horn protruding from it's head. And it's the same principle with the cockatrice and satyr. The early authors of Hebrew and English didn't have technical names for certain creatures. Keep in mind, there's no reference to magic, or half-human characteristics. Keep in mind that the ancient Hebrew language is very difficult for even early historians closer to that time period. Also keep in mind that we use terms today for people that are not technical terms either. For instance, what would you think if someone told you their neighbor's high school kids were goths or vampires? Would you think they were time travelers from the gothic era of Europe? Or ratherkids who dressed in black with white face paint? Or, kids who have to sleep in a coffin during the day, need to drink human blood to survive, void of mirror images, can literally fly? Or rather kids who like to stay out late, avoid eating so they can look pale, wear capes, etc.?

I would have to go back and re-read those sections mentioning these creatures. I don't remember how they were used, and I am on my phone now.

I would recommend doing just that.

As far as giants go, some common ancestors are not only speculated to be shorter than humans (thus my reference to trolls, leprechauns, fairies, etc.), but some are speculated to range from around 8 feet to 9 feet tall.

I'll need to re-read these sections also to be sure the giants are not super sized (which is generally how I understand giant), and I admit in this day and age we do call tall or large people "giants". (Andre the giant for example).
Yes, there's no reason to believe that references to giants in the Bible must coincide with our modern perspective of "giants" that has been molded by movies...basically a being that can demolish high rise buildings. Did you ever notice that every fellow "giant" that Godzilla does battle with is pretty much the same size?

A bit of trivia:

Did you know that the MLB New York Giants got their nickname because the players on average were particularly tall?