It's funny. No matter how many completely pathetic pictures show up of the Lochness Monster, the mystery still remains and people still keep the legend alive. Who thinks it is real and who thinks it's just a Marketing scheme?
I am half way between sceptic and believer. I have studied a lot of Viking Artifacts with the fascination that a very good portion of their art depicts a serpent like creature. It looks exactly like a pleasiosaur. (Forgive me if I spelled it wrong) I see a lot of Viking Artifacts with a creature with a long neck, huge fins and a long narrow head and a whiplike tail. This kind of makes me believe that when the Vikings sailed the sea's, they may have witnessed some of these creatures. However that was thousands of years ago. Perhaps they may have seen the very last of them.
With all of our technology, it is almost sure that someone out there would have seen and photographed without a doubt one by now. I'm not saying that they are extinct, but it's highly unlikely. They would have to reproduce a good amount for survival. They would also need land to lay eggs, unless they bear live young.
My own brother actually saw two enormous serpent like creatures snorkeling in Japan in the early 1980's. However they were completely round and snakelike. Not having a thicker body mass and protruding flippers. So this tells me, the sea can hide things that may never be seen.
To think it lives in the Loch if it does exist, I would doubt it. I would imagine it may venture into the lock accidentally or chasing food into the loch, merely exploring, it may surface here and there, but generally heads back out to the ocean. Who Knows! With so many sightings, it would be great to see something worthy. Then again, People Ruin Myths all the time with stupid hoaxes. I doubt even if someone took a Picture of Nessie right up close and personal if the picture would even be believed these days.
Full Version: Lochness Monster ALIVE OR EXTINCT?
I think that, since we still haven't explored all of the underwater places all over the world, we will probably get some evidence or even living proof that there has at least been a few surviving sea-living dinosaurs. If it has been a "Loch Ness monster" and it would have died, wouldnt the body of it have been found? I have no idea of how deep Loch Ness is, but there might be some sort of underwater tunnel out into the ocean and the monster has escaped through there (and yes, then it would probably have been salt water in the lake, but there might be an "anti-salt" filter in the tunnel, I don't know).
I believe in most things though, partially beacuse I want it to be true I think ^^
I believe in most things though, partially beacuse I want it to be true I think ^^
You could find all your 'Nessie' questions on any one of the numerous threads already in existance, but as i am here.........we have looked and failed to find a thing = Myth
QUOTE(Humble_God @ Sep 27 2007, 12:55 AM) 
It's funny. No matter how many completely pathetic pictures show up of the Lochness Monster, the mystery still remains and people still keep the legend alive. Who thinks it is real and who thinks it's just a Marketing scheme?
I am half way between sceptic and believer. I have studied a lot of Viking Artifacts with the fascination that a very good portion of their art depicts a serpent like creature. It looks exactly like a pleasiosaur. (Forgive me if I spelled it wrong) I see a lot of Viking Artifacts with a creature with a long neck, huge fins and a long narrow head and a whiplike tail. This kind of makes me believe that when the Vikings sailed the sea's, they may have witnessed some of these creatures. However that was thousands of years ago. Perhaps they may have seen the very last of them.
With all of our technology, it is almost sure that someone out there would have seen and photographed without a doubt one by now. I'm not saying that they are extinct, but it's highly unlikely. They would have to reproduce a good amount for survival. They would also need land to lay eggs, unless they bear live young.
My own brother actually saw two enormous serpent like creatures snorkeling in Japan in the early 1980's. However they were completely round and snakelike. Not having a thicker body mass and protruding flippers. So this tells me, the sea can hide things that may never be seen.
To think it lives in the Loch if it does exist, I would doubt it. I would imagine it may venture into the lock accidentally or chasing food into the loch, merely exploring, it may surface here and there, but generally heads back out to the ocean. Who Knows! With so many sightings, it would be great to see something worthy. Then again, People Ruin Myths all the time with stupid hoaxes. I doubt even if someone took a Picture of Nessie right up close and personal if the picture would even be believed these days.
I am half way between sceptic and believer. I have studied a lot of Viking Artifacts with the fascination that a very good portion of their art depicts a serpent like creature. It looks exactly like a pleasiosaur. (Forgive me if I spelled it wrong) I see a lot of Viking Artifacts with a creature with a long neck, huge fins and a long narrow head and a whiplike tail. This kind of makes me believe that when the Vikings sailed the sea's, they may have witnessed some of these creatures. However that was thousands of years ago. Perhaps they may have seen the very last of them.
With all of our technology, it is almost sure that someone out there would have seen and photographed without a doubt one by now. I'm not saying that they are extinct, but it's highly unlikely. They would have to reproduce a good amount for survival. They would also need land to lay eggs, unless they bear live young.
My own brother actually saw two enormous serpent like creatures snorkeling in Japan in the early 1980's. However they were completely round and snakelike. Not having a thicker body mass and protruding flippers. So this tells me, the sea can hide things that may never be seen.
To think it lives in the Loch if it does exist, I would doubt it. I would imagine it may venture into the lock accidentally or chasing food into the loch, merely exploring, it may surface here and there, but generally heads back out to the ocean. Who Knows! With so many sightings, it would be great to see something worthy. Then again, People Ruin Myths all the time with stupid hoaxes. I doubt even if someone took a Picture of Nessie right up close and personal if the picture would even be believed these days.
The same type of creatures are also still reported in Norway, Russia , China and Champ and Ogopogo of North America. It is interesting that these creatures seem to favor northern latitudes which seems odd for reptiles.
It is a mistake to think they are plesiosaurs, in any case. These creatures cannot raise their necks like a bird or long necked dinosaur, and some of the early reports did describe Nessie crossing roads, etc. It is not a waterbound creature, so you can also rule out sturgeon and eels.
Like it or not, Nessie and her kind, who are still seen throughout the world, can be not other than the very same creatures that mankind used to called "dragons", only that word has become so associated with both bad fantasy novels and religious beliefs that most people do not wish to admit that even the most intelligent of our ancestors acknowledged their existence. Scientific books only three centuries ago stated the were as real as any rhino or elephant. Virtually every religious belief in the world also has dragons associated with it, despite the amateurish attempts to hide these facts, as we see even in Christianity, where archaeoogist show us that Yahweh was originally a Cannanite Storm Dragon named "Yaw".
But we cannot make them go away my merely saying they are a fable. They will continue to be seen, and people will either believe in them or not. But all of the earliest legends around the world say there were our gods. And as our "gods", I am sure they can elude our pathetic attempts to capture or even detect them. While there are thousands of accounts of people seeing them, all over the world and by hundreds of witnesses at a time, I believe all of the legends of humans actually killing them are nonsense, and if any had ever died, perhaps they eat their own kind or otherwise hide their remains in the most inaccesible places where we will never find them. And like so many of the legends say, perhaps they possess abilities we do not understand. Perhaps we will never find their bones because none have ever died.
If an intelligent species has lived a hundred million years or more, there is no telling how far they have attuned their psychic abilities. This is a field mere humans have only the most rudmentary understanding.
QUOTE(Humble_God @ Sep 27 2007, 06:55 AM)
My own brother actually saw two enormous serpent like creatures snorkeling in Japan in the early 1980's. However they were completely round and snakelike. Not having a thicker body mass and protruding flippers. So this tells me, the sea can hide things that may never be seen.
Are you sure it wasn't a couple really big eels, like Morays or Congers? I don't really know their distribution, but I'd reckon there must be a few species of large eels.
QUOTE
To think it lives in the Loch if it does exist, I would doubt it. I would imagine it may venture into the lock accidentally or chasing food into the loch, merely exploring, it may surface here and there, but generally heads back out to the ocean. Who Knows! With so many sightings, it would be great to see something worthy. Then again, People Ruin Myths all the time with stupid hoaxes. I doubt even if someone took a Picture of Nessie right up close and personal if the picture would even be believed these days.
Well, it would have difficulty getting from the loch to the sea, considering all the locks it would have to bypass along the Caledonian Canal. Not unless it knows how to open the locks itself
Seriously though, it would be fairly difficult, if not impossible, for any large animal to get from the Beaully Firth (the closest estuary to the loch) to Loch Ness unnoticed. If it is anything, it would have to be indigenous to the loch, which is why it's highly unlikely unless it's something totally different to what we persieve it to be.
QUOTE(Humble_God @ Sep 27 2007, 03:55 PM)
It's funny. No matter how many completely pathetic pictures show up of the Lochness Monster, the mystery still remains and people still keep the legend alive. Who thinks it is real and who thinks it's just a Marketing scheme?
I am half way between sceptic and believer. I have studied a lot of Viking Artifacts with the fascination that a very good portion of their art depicts a serpent like creature. It looks exactly like a pleasiosaur. (Forgive me if I spelled it wrong) I see a lot of Viking Artifacts with a creature with a long neck, huge fins and a long narrow head and a whiplike tail. This kind of makes me believe that when the Vikings sailed the sea's, they may have witnessed some of these creatures. However that was thousands of years ago. Perhaps they may have seen the very last of them.
With all of our technology, it is almost sure that someone out there would have seen and photographed without a doubt one by now. I'm not saying that they are extinct, but it's highly unlikely. They would have to reproduce a good amount for survival. They would also need land to lay eggs, unless they bear live young.
My own brother actually saw two enormous serpent like creatures snorkeling in Japan in the early 1980's. However they were completely round and snakelike. Not having a thicker body mass and protruding flippers. So this tells me, the sea can hide things that may never be seen.
To think it lives in the Loch if it does exist, I would doubt it. I would imagine it may venture into the lock accidentally or chasing food into the loch, merely exploring, it may surface here and there, but generally heads back out to the ocean. Who Knows! With so many sightings, it would be great to see something worthy. Then again, People Ruin Myths all the time with stupid hoaxes. I doubt even if someone took a Picture of Nessie right up close and personal if the picture would even be believed these days.
I am half way between sceptic and believer. I have studied a lot of Viking Artifacts with the fascination that a very good portion of their art depicts a serpent like creature. It looks exactly like a pleasiosaur. (Forgive me if I spelled it wrong) I see a lot of Viking Artifacts with a creature with a long neck, huge fins and a long narrow head and a whiplike tail. This kind of makes me believe that when the Vikings sailed the sea's, they may have witnessed some of these creatures. However that was thousands of years ago. Perhaps they may have seen the very last of them.
With all of our technology, it is almost sure that someone out there would have seen and photographed without a doubt one by now. I'm not saying that they are extinct, but it's highly unlikely. They would have to reproduce a good amount for survival. They would also need land to lay eggs, unless they bear live young.
My own brother actually saw two enormous serpent like creatures snorkeling in Japan in the early 1980's. However they were completely round and snakelike. Not having a thicker body mass and protruding flippers. So this tells me, the sea can hide things that may never be seen.
To think it lives in the Loch if it does exist, I would doubt it. I would imagine it may venture into the lock accidentally or chasing food into the loch, merely exploring, it may surface here and there, but generally heads back out to the ocean. Who Knows! With so many sightings, it would be great to see something worthy. Then again, People Ruin Myths all the time with stupid hoaxes. I doubt even if someone took a Picture of Nessie right up close and personal if the picture would even be believed these days.
Urisk has it covered, no connection to the ocean. DC has the Plesiosaur covered, that can't be the answer. It just isn't there. The BBC proved it.
A member here called SFserpent would be interested in talking to your brother. Search for their posts, you will see what I mean.
^^ more likely an Each Uisge 
QUOTE(psyche101 @ Sep 27 2007, 06:37 PM)
Urisk has it covered, no connection to the ocean. DC has the Plesiosaur covered, that can't be the answer. It just isn't there. The BBC proved it.
A member here called SFserpent would be interested in talking to your brother. Search for their posts, you will see what I mean.
A member here called SFserpent would be interested in talking to your brother. Search for their posts, you will see what I mean.
The BBC only proved it is probably not an animal that must stay in the water like a large fish. The sonar scans proved nothing more. Several people reported seeing the creature on land. In fact, in may actually spend more time on land than in the water. It may eat more deer than fish.
Our planet is a planet of water, yet we know so little of the depths. Coelacanth was thought extinct but was repeatedly found. Largest living organisms on Earth are found in the oceans. The most diverse and alien ecosystems are found in bodies of water. Down there is a plethora of who knows what. Lets be aware of our ignorance and insignificance.
Oh NOOOO!!!! The dreaded C word was used! 
Pfft, I'm not ignorant OR insignificant.....at least not until my wife gets home.
QUOTE(~Onyx~ @ Sep 28 2007, 01:33 PM)
Pfft, I'm not ignorant OR insignificant.....at least not until my wife gets home.
LMAO!
I'm goig to use that this weekend.
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Sep 28 2007, 07:46 AM)
The BBC only proved it is probably not an animal that must stay in the water like a large fish. The sonar scans proved nothing more. Several people reported seeing the creature on land. In fact, in may actually spend more time on land than in the water. It may eat more deer than fish.
If it was primarily a land creature it would have been discovered long long ago. To reply to the thread title, it's neither alive nor extinct; it simply never existed. The Loch doesn't even contain enough food to sustain a population of creatures that large.
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Sep 27 2007, 06:23 AM)
The same type of creatures are also still reported in Norway, Russia , China and Champ and Ogopogo of North America. It is interesting that these creatures seem to favor northern latitudes which seems odd for reptiles.
It is a mistake to think they are plesiosaurs, in any case. These creatures cannot raise their necks like a bird or long necked dinosaur, and some of the early reports did describe Nessie crossing roads, etc. It is not a waterbound creature, so you can also rule out sturgeon and eels.
Like it or not, Nessie and her kind, who are still seen throughout the world, can be not other than the very same creatures that mankind used to called "dragons", only that word has become so associated with both bad fantasy novels and religious beliefs that most people do not wish to admit that even the most intelligent of our ancestors acknowledged their existence. Scientific books only three centuries ago stated the were as real as any rhino or elephant. Virtually every religious belief in the world also has dragons associated with it, despite the amateurish attempts to hide these facts, as we see even in Christianity, where archaeoogist show us that Yahweh was originally a Cannanite Storm Dragon named "Yaw".
But we cannot make them go away my merely saying they are a fable. They will continue to be seen, and people will either believe in them or not. But all of the earliest legends around the world say there were our gods. And as our "gods", I am sure they can elude our pathetic attempts to capture or even detect them. While there are thousands of accounts of people seeing them, all over the world and by hundreds of witnesses at a time, I believe all of the legends of humans actually killing them are nonsense, and if any had ever died, perhaps they eat their own kind or otherwise hide their remains in the most inaccesible places where we will never find them. And like so many of the legends say, perhaps they possess abilities we do not understand. Perhaps we will never find their bones because none have ever died.
If an intelligent species has lived a hundred million years or more, there is no telling how far they have attuned their psychic abilities. This is a field mere humans have only the most rudmentary understanding.
It is a mistake to think they are plesiosaurs, in any case. These creatures cannot raise their necks like a bird or long necked dinosaur, and some of the early reports did describe Nessie crossing roads, etc. It is not a waterbound creature, so you can also rule out sturgeon and eels.
Like it or not, Nessie and her kind, who are still seen throughout the world, can be not other than the very same creatures that mankind used to called "dragons", only that word has become so associated with both bad fantasy novels and religious beliefs that most people do not wish to admit that even the most intelligent of our ancestors acknowledged their existence. Scientific books only three centuries ago stated the were as real as any rhino or elephant. Virtually every religious belief in the world also has dragons associated with it, despite the amateurish attempts to hide these facts, as we see even in Christianity, where archaeoogist show us that Yahweh was originally a Cannanite Storm Dragon named "Yaw".
But we cannot make them go away my merely saying they are a fable. They will continue to be seen, and people will either believe in them or not. But all of the earliest legends around the world say there were our gods. And as our "gods", I am sure they can elude our pathetic attempts to capture or even detect them. While there are thousands of accounts of people seeing them, all over the world and by hundreds of witnesses at a time, I believe all of the legends of humans actually killing them are nonsense, and if any had ever died, perhaps they eat their own kind or otherwise hide their remains in the most inaccesible places where we will never find them. And like so many of the legends say, perhaps they possess abilities we do not understand. Perhaps we will never find their bones because none have ever died.
If an intelligent species has lived a hundred million years or more, there is no telling how far they have attuned their psychic abilities. This is a field mere humans have only the most rudmentary understanding.
Thee are no such thing as dragons. You just keep gasping out the same things never providing any solid proof. For one you state that only 3 centuries ago people believed them to be real, thats 300 years... Alot of stuff has happened in 3 hundred years, like electricity, etc. Just in the last 10 years like 300 or somrthing species were discovered in Borneo alone, soooo.. umm yeah.
Regardless I believe Nessie is real, whatever it may be (though not a dragon). One of the latest dives into the Loch Ness yeilded the discoverey of a whole new family of bacteria, I may be mistake but I believe it may have been an entirely new phylum aswell. So why not something bigger.
-Joel.
Ps. Its not a dragon.
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Sep 27 2007, 07:23 AM)
Like it or not, Nessie and her kind, who are still seen throughout the world, can be not other than the very same creatures that mankind used to called "dragons", only that word has become so associated with both bad fantasy novels and religious beliefs that most people do not wish to admit that even the most intelligent of our ancestors acknowledged their existence. Scientific books only three centuries ago stated the were as real as any rhino or elephant. Virtually every religious belief in the world also has dragons associated with it, despite the amateurish attempts to hide these facts, as we see even in Christianity, where archaeoogist show us that Yahweh was originally a Cannanite Storm Dragon named "Yaw".
Just because it was 'acknowleded' by people in the past doesn't make it true. Past peoples have also acknowledged succubus, witches on brooms, cyclops, dragons, and vampires. And just because it was in books in the past, also does not make it true. By this logic, the earth is flat and the sun circles us.
QUOTE(Urisk @ Sep 28 2007, 01:24 PM)
Oh NOOOO!!!! The dreaded C word was used!
Haha.
I hear you. It is always used as a comparison tool, but it just doesn't work. It's okay though, the culprit in question is new.
QUOTE(bball @ Sep 29 2007, 12:45 AM)
Just because it was 'acknowleded' by people in the past doesn't make it true. Past peoples have also acknowledged succubus, witches on brooms, cyclops, dragons, and vampires. And just because it was in books in the past, also does not make it true. By this logic, the earth is flat and the sun circles us.
But often what is is books in very true despite the ignorance of later peoples. When the ignorant medieval people believed the world was flat, there were books around, written by ancient Greeks that stated the earth was round, and even calculated its almost exact size. And these same Greek scientists believed huge flying dragons still lived in their times and remarked on their habits, (and though they claimed cyclops lived in the past, because of their legends, they thought they were all dead in their times, unlike dragons, which were still seen in their times.
But BOTH the learned Greeks AND the ignorant medieval people ALL believed in dragons (which is what Nessie would have been to them), as did every human culture in the world for thousnds of years, and were such a common site that they are casually mentioned and appear in the backgrounds of painting like any bird.
By your logic, if you haven't seen something yourself, it cannot be true.
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Sep 29 2007, 06:13 AM)
By your logic, if you haven't seen something yourself, it cannot be true.
No. By my logic, if NO ONE has verifiably seen one, or produced any evidence of one (other than in ancient interpretable text, or midevil text, or cultures that were subject to believe anything due to a lack of understanding) they don't exist in flesh in blood. Anything outside of that is not worth discussing because all someone has to say is we don't see them because they have powers.
Spoken like a true skeptic Bball. I agree with everything you have said.
DC, has been around in several threads trying to convince people about dragons, but I have seen no proof as to why he believes this, only spewing out contradictory points.
One of which he said that they're never found because they eat there own dead, but in another topic he recently started (which you can see by clicking on his username and reading his recently started topics) you can see that he says the dragons bodies haven't been found simply because they haven't died.
He also undoubtedly refers to NO specific are in ANY specific bible or text books to look, then he disregards skeptics by restating what he just said in a different way.
And with what DC has said so far. Yaweh is the son of god, so he is Christ, Christ died, and then was re-animated, so there for Yaweh is a zombie, not a dragon.
Simple as that.
-Joel.
DC, has been around in several threads trying to convince people about dragons, but I have seen no proof as to why he believes this, only spewing out contradictory points.
One of which he said that they're never found because they eat there own dead, but in another topic he recently started (which you can see by clicking on his username and reading his recently started topics) you can see that he says the dragons bodies haven't been found simply because they haven't died.
He also undoubtedly refers to NO specific are in ANY specific bible or text books to look, then he disregards skeptics by restating what he just said in a different way.
And with what DC has said so far. Yaweh is the son of god, so he is Christ, Christ died, and then was re-animated, so there for Yaweh is a zombie, not a dragon.
Simple as that.
-Joel.
QUOTE(DarkSide @ Sep 29 2007, 02:45 PM)
Spoken like a true skeptic Bball. I agree with everything you have said.
DC, has been around in several threads trying to convince people about dragons, but I have seen no proof as to why he believes this, only spewing out contradictory points.
One of which he said that they're never found because they eat there own dead, but in another topic he recently started (which you can see by clicking on his username and reading his recently started topics) you can see that he says the dragons bodies haven't been found simply because they haven't died.
He also undoubtedly refers to NO specific are in ANY specific bible or text books to look, then he disregards skeptics by restating what he just said in a different way.
And with what DC has said so far. Yaweh is the son of god, so he is Christ, Christ died, and then was re-animated, so there for Yaweh is a zombie, not a dragon.
Simple as that.
-Joel.
DC, has been around in several threads trying to convince people about dragons, but I have seen no proof as to why he believes this, only spewing out contradictory points.
One of which he said that they're never found because they eat there own dead, but in another topic he recently started (which you can see by clicking on his username and reading his recently started topics) you can see that he says the dragons bodies haven't been found simply because they haven't died.
He also undoubtedly refers to NO specific are in ANY specific bible or text books to look, then he disregards skeptics by restating what he just said in a different way.
And with what DC has said so far. Yaweh is the son of god, so he is Christ, Christ died, and then was re-animated, so there for Yaweh is a zombie, not a dragon.
Simple as that.
-Joel.
Yeah, there are many problems. Saying anything that will explain our lack of evidence for them, (such as eating there own dead is why we don't see bodies) is just so speculative. How can any of this stuff be known? It is excuse after excuse for why no one can prove they exist.
QUOTE(Kroaker11 @ Sep 29 2007, 02:51 AM)
If it was primarily a land creature it would have been discovered long long ago. To reply to the thread title, it's neither alive nor extinct; it simply never existed. The Loch doesn't even contain enough food to sustain a population of creatures that large.
At last somebody making sense.
QUOTE(DarkSide @ Sep 29 2007, 02:53 AM)
Thee are no such thing as dragons. You just keep gasping out the same things never providing any solid proof. For one you state that only 3 centuries ago people believed them to be real, thats 300 years... Alot of stuff has happened in 3 hundred years, like electricity, etc. Just in the last 10 years like 300 or somrthing species were discovered in Borneo alone, soooo.. umm yeah.
Regardless I believe Nessie is real, whatever it may be (though not a dragon). One of the latest dives into the Loch Ness yeilded the discoverey of a whole new family of bacteria, I may be mistake but I believe it may have been an entirely new phylum aswell. So why not something bigger.
-Joel.
Ps. Its not a dragon.
Regardless I believe Nessie is real, whatever it may be (though not a dragon). One of the latest dives into the Loch Ness yeilded the discoverey of a whole new family of bacteria, I may be mistake but I believe it may have been an entirely new phylum aswell. So why not something bigger.
-Joel.
Ps. Its not a dragon.
Okay, so your stating that it isnt a DRAGON.
Do you know what a dragon looks like?, or do you simply think its a big dinosaur like beast with wings?
Mayb they dive and swimmed under water with their big wings?(if they have that geometry)
How can you even state that there are no such thing as dragons?
Everything can exist, cus we cant prove that it didint.
We cant prove that it exist, neither prove that it dont exist, but we must go onwards with the believe that anything is possible if we want to continue researching.
Well understanding basic anatomy would help you. Most dragons now adays are depicted with having hind legs, forelegs, and wings, bringing it to a grand total of 6 limbs. No animals besides arthropods have more than 4 limbs. So disprove that.
Also a 60 foot animal would have to be pretty lightweight and by pretty I mean REALLY, or have to have a wingspan larger than a 7-47. Also it would need a natural De-icer, how about any other animals that can breathe fire? So maybe YOU should do some more research.
Regardless, a few posts up there was something about there not being enough food in the Loch my rebuttal is as follows:
Eels in the loch have know to grow up too 12 feet possibly larger. Also larger ifsh are completely possible of swimming into the lcoh through the Canals.
Also a 60 foot animal would have to be pretty lightweight and by pretty I mean REALLY, or have to have a wingspan larger than a 7-47. Also it would need a natural De-icer, how about any other animals that can breathe fire? So maybe YOU should do some more research.
Regardless, a few posts up there was something about there not being enough food in the Loch my rebuttal is as follows:
Eels in the loch have know to grow up too 12 feet possibly larger. Also larger ifsh are completely possible of swimming into the lcoh through the Canals.
A Scottish paper today reported that people are starting to fear that Nessie has died 
due to a dramitic drop in sighting over the past year or so. Poor Nessie.
due to a dramitic drop in sighting over the past year or so. Poor Nessie.
QUOTE(DarkSide @ Sep 30 2007, 01:36 AM)
or have to have a wingspan larger than a 7-47.
Well, are u saying that with any ground?
Mayb their wings are composed by something(not enterily ofc) that manipulate air?, making it easier to bare the weight?
QUOTE(BellaTrixie @ Sep 30 2007, 03:45 PM)
A Scottish paper today reported that people are starting to fear that Nessie has died due to a dramitic drop in sighting over the past year or so. Poor Nessie.
due to a dramitic drop in sighting over the past year or so. Poor Nessie."...over the past year or so"! My word! BellaTrixie: how many sightings per year typically come in?
QUOTE(Archosaur @ Sep 30 2007, 08:53 PM)
"...over the past year or so"! My word! BellaTrixie: how many sightings per year typically come in?
It says there had only been 2 sightings this year, both by English gentlemen and both could'nt be explained. Thats compaired with 15 sightings in 2005. I'm trying to remember the numbers as I don't have a paper to hand
The ground I'm saying this on is that the largest flying animal is an Albatross, which has a 12 foot wingspan.
Name any other animal in the history of earth that could 'manipulate air'
DRAGONS:The Last Airbender!
Name any other animal in the history of earth that could 'manipulate air'
DRAGONS:The Last Airbender!
Does anyone else see a problem with this monster? It seems it is not only a creature that is very large and have no "relatives" - it appears to have intelligence too.
Somehow, this creature knows when to show and when not to. When they searched the whole lake with sonar, the creature knew this and therefore it disappeared. It has a very good sense of who carries a camera. The creature have no "cycle" to follow - i.e. sleep, eating, mating (shouldn't the last one be noticed quite a lot in the otherwise still and peaceful lake?). Who knows, maybe it even hides it's corpses or eats them, or maybe they have a very unusual genetic makeup, thus they quickly pulverize after death.
My point here is that the creature seems to be very odd to be "just" an animal. After all, since it appears to be a reptile, shouldn't it be attacking people instead of hiding from them (since humans would provide quite a good meal for them, considering the else "empty" lake)?
Somehow, this creature knows when to show and when not to. When they searched the whole lake with sonar, the creature knew this and therefore it disappeared. It has a very good sense of who carries a camera. The creature have no "cycle" to follow - i.e. sleep, eating, mating (shouldn't the last one be noticed quite a lot in the otherwise still and peaceful lake?). Who knows, maybe it even hides it's corpses or eats them, or maybe they have a very unusual genetic makeup, thus they quickly pulverize after death.
My point here is that the creature seems to be very odd to be "just" an animal. After all, since it appears to be a reptile, shouldn't it be attacking people instead of hiding from them (since humans would provide quite a good meal for them, considering the else "empty" lake)?
Heres a quote regarding the sonar, don't know if its been posted before:
“The Discovery Loch Ness documentary showed a sonar trace of a diver swimming under its boat in order to demonstrate to its viewers what a man-sized animal would look like on sonar. What a shame that Discovery failed to mention that sonar reflects differences in density so that 75% of the echo was from the air tank on the diver's back ... a further 15% was from the air bubbles he was breathing out ... 5% was from the air trapped in the dry suit so only 5% came from the diver's lungs (all percentages are rough estimates). In order to provide a contact as strong as that shown by Discovery, the animal would have had to have been twenty times larger than a man. What is really sad is that it took an amateur to spot such a glaringly inaccurate piece of evidence. Such amazing science from the Discovery channel! More recently the President of the Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, Gary Campbell, made a similar error.”
This has all prolly been said before but heres a short list of just some of the animals in Loch ness:
salmon, Trout, Eels, Minnows, Carr, Otters, Swimming Deer (apparently fairly common), Birds including Heron, comorant and ducks. Pleanty of frogs and toads too.
So Loch Ness is hardly barron of life.
Another thing, I've seen reports of snakes in Zoos that only feed twice a year due to inactivity. If Nessie was fairly inactive and since she lives in such cold water (does'nt the cold make reptiles inactive too?) Would'nt she get away with not eating that much?
Loch Ness is freaking huge. Its easy to forget just how big and deep it is, here could be caves and allsorts down there.
“The Discovery Loch Ness documentary showed a sonar trace of a diver swimming under its boat in order to demonstrate to its viewers what a man-sized animal would look like on sonar. What a shame that Discovery failed to mention that sonar reflects differences in density so that 75% of the echo was from the air tank on the diver's back ... a further 15% was from the air bubbles he was breathing out ... 5% was from the air trapped in the dry suit so only 5% came from the diver's lungs (all percentages are rough estimates). In order to provide a contact as strong as that shown by Discovery, the animal would have had to have been twenty times larger than a man. What is really sad is that it took an amateur to spot such a glaringly inaccurate piece of evidence. Such amazing science from the Discovery channel! More recently the President of the Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, Gary Campbell, made a similar error.”
This has all prolly been said before but heres a short list of just some of the animals in Loch ness:
salmon, Trout, Eels, Minnows, Carr, Otters, Swimming Deer (apparently fairly common), Birds including Heron, comorant and ducks. Pleanty of frogs and toads too.
So Loch Ness is hardly barron of life.
Another thing, I've seen reports of snakes in Zoos that only feed twice a year due to inactivity. If Nessie was fairly inactive and since she lives in such cold water (does'nt the cold make reptiles inactive too?) Would'nt she get away with not eating that much?
Loch Ness is freaking huge. Its easy to forget just how big and deep it is, here could be caves and allsorts down there.
Yes, thats true, since the water is cold and Nessie is atleast some sort of reptile, which are cold-blodded, it would slow down her metabolic rate, meaning s/he wouldn't have to feed as often.
I also remember seeing a documentary on Nessie that showed them doing Sonar, but one of the objects was unrecognizable, by the sonar reader who also stated that the object wasn't touching the bottom of the loch, neither was it a charted ship wreck.
-Joel.
I also remember seeing a documentary on Nessie that showed them doing Sonar, but one of the objects was unrecognizable, by the sonar reader who also stated that the object wasn't touching the bottom of the loch, neither was it a charted ship wreck.
-Joel.
QUOTE(DarkSide @ Sep 29 2007, 02:45 PM)
Spoken like a true skeptic Bball. I agree with everything you have said.
DC, has been around in several threads trying to convince people about dragons, but I have seen no proof as to why he believes this, only spewing out contradictory points.
One of which he said that they're never found because they eat there own dead, but in another topic he recently started (which you can see by clicking on his username and reading his recently started topics) you can see that he says the dragons bodies haven't been found simply because they haven't died.
He also undoubtedly refers to NO specific are in ANY specific bible or text books to look, then he disregards skeptics by restating what he just said in a different way.
And with what DC has said so far. Yaweh is the son of god, so he is Christ, Christ died, and then was re-animated, so there for Yaweh is a zombie, not a dragon.
Simple as that.
-Joel.
DC, has been around in several threads trying to convince people about dragons, but I have seen no proof as to why he believes this, only spewing out contradictory points.
One of which he said that they're never found because they eat there own dead, but in another topic he recently started (which you can see by clicking on his username and reading his recently started topics) you can see that he says the dragons bodies haven't been found simply because they haven't died.
He also undoubtedly refers to NO specific are in ANY specific bible or text books to look, then he disregards skeptics by restating what he just said in a different way.
And with what DC has said so far. Yaweh is the son of god, so he is Christ, Christ died, and then was re-animated, so there for Yaweh is a zombie, not a dragon.
Simple as that.
-Joel.
I am not contradicting myself, you are just apparently too dumb to understand.
There is no contradtiction in citing two different theories why dragon bones have not been found. One is that the dragons eat their dead, and like most predatory reptiles, can completely dissolve bones, and the other is that they many not die, as many legends allude to. One does not contradict the other, maybe you do not understand what this word means.
You apparenlty do not understand enough about Judao-Christian religion to understand what I was explaining. It has nothing to do with Jesus. On the contrary, the cannanites, hebrews and sumerians all had dragons that assisted in the development of a specific tribe or city state, but these were not the true creator God. To the Hebrews these creatures were called Bene Elohim, meaning "Sons of God". But these are not literal biological sons, but ancient created servants possibly dating back to the mesoazoic era. No zombies guy.
QUOTE
“The Discovery Loch Ness documentary showed a sonar trace... ...made a similar error.”
Well, there have been numerous sonar studies of the loch.
QUOTE
So Loch Ness is hardly barron of life.
Maybe not empty, but sunlight doesn't go all the way in the loch, so the creature would in any case be around the surface-levels.
QUOTE
If Nessie was fairly inactive and since she lives in such cold water (does'nt the cold make reptiles inactive too?) Would'nt she get away with not eating that much?
Again, it depends on what kind of creature the monster is. If it is a cold-blooded creature, it has to live in the tropics. If it has "warm blood", then the requirements isn't enough to keep it going. Although, it could be possible that somehow the creature lives in a cave warmed by volcanic activity, but that would be assuming the creature has evolved to live in cold waters.
QUOTE
Loch Ness is freaking huge. Its easy to forget just how big and deep it is, here could be caves and allsorts down there.
But is it big enough to hide something the size of the Loch Ness monster, and it's activity?
Also, are there any documentation of caves and such in Loch Ness?
QUOTE(JC Denton @ Sep 30 2007, 07:29 PM)
Again, it depends on what kind of creature the monster is. If it is a cold-blooded creature, it has to live in the tropics. If it has "warm blood", then the requirements isn't enough to keep it going.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of cold-blooded animals that live in temperate climates, like snakes in Canada, etc. But I digress.
DC!
Fair enough. I will accept that answer.
BUT
I am still not impressed with how you have taken some question. When asked for sources of information (textbooks, reknowned scientists, and historians, the publishers and ilustrators of your supposed book, and areas in scriptures and bibles to refer to) you generally ignore the question, only going on to say stuff that you could just be spewing out from your brain. I have read a fair bit of your posts and probably seen you say the same thing about 10 times maybe.
So becuase of this, I think it takes away from your credibility, if you think its to tender of a subject to be referred too in a post feel free to PM me with a list of your sources.
-Joel.
P.s. I'm not a religious kind of guy, I look at things at more of an evolutionary standing point if you haven't noticed
P.s.s. DC, I don't see why you always find it necessary to attack people debating with you personally. You could hurt someone's feelings, plus you've been warned about it before.
xl. Because the only way into the loch for any aquatic creature would have been from the sea after the last ice age via the River Ness, it is now known that the monster, if there is one, could not be an invertebrate or amphibian because neither of those could make the sudden transition from salt to fresh water.
xli. If the monster were a mammal the intensive surface surveillance would have solved the mystery in the sixties because mammals breath air and must surface regularly.
xlii. The low ambient temperature of Loch Ness rules out cold-blooded reptiles as the identity of the monster. Warm-blooded reptiles, if they existed at all, would have needed to surface as regularly as mammals and the identity would have been solved long ago.
Source.
xli. If the monster were a mammal the intensive surface surveillance would have solved the mystery in the sixties because mammals breath air and must surface regularly.
xlii. The low ambient temperature of Loch Ness rules out cold-blooded reptiles as the identity of the monster. Warm-blooded reptiles, if they existed at all, would have needed to surface as regularly as mammals and the identity would have been solved long ago.
Source.
QUOTE(bball @ Sep 29 2007, 07:45 AM)
Just because it was 'acknowleded' by people in the past doesn't make it true. Past peoples have also acknowledged succubus, witches on brooms, cyclops, dragons, and vampires. And just because it was in books in the past, also does not make it true. By this logic, the earth is flat and the sun circles us.
Yup.
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Sep 29 2007, 01:13 PM)
But often what is is books in very true despite the ignorance of later peoples.
Au contraire, i would say rarely.
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Sep 29 2007, 01:13 PM)
When the ignorant medieval people believed the world was flat, there were books around, written by ancient Greeks that stated the earth was round, and even calculated its almost exact size. And these same Greek scientists believed huge flying dragons still lived in their times and remarked on their habits, (and though they claimed cyclops lived in the past, because of their legends, they thought they were all dead in their times, unlike dragons, which were still seen in their times.
But BOTH the learned Greeks AND the ignorant medieval people ALL believed in dragons (which is what Nessie would have been to them), as did every human culture in the world for thousnds of years, and were such a common site that they are casually mentioned and appear in the backgrounds of painting like any bird.
By your logic, if you haven't seen something yourself, it cannot be true.
But BOTH the learned Greeks AND the ignorant medieval people ALL believed in dragons (which is what Nessie would have been to them), as did every human culture in the world for thousnds of years, and were such a common site that they are casually mentioned and appear in the backgrounds of painting like any bird.
By your logic, if you haven't seen something yourself, it cannot be true.
First off, people were highly superstitious in those times and exaggerated not rarely. People wanted to believe, as always. There is little credibility there where you are looking for proof.
Greek philosophers had an idea of an universal "building brick" thousands of years ago, long before people discovered atom. Simply put, they got some things right. But they also believed that Gods walked the earth like they did and attributed natural disasters to "wrath of the Gods". People in those times also went to battles depending on moods of their Gods. Greek philosophers were geniuses but they lived in times of great superstition.
QUOTE(DarkSide @ Sep 29 2007, 09:45 PM)
DC, has been around in several threads trying to convince people about dragons, but I have seen no proof as to why he believes this, only spewing out contradictory points.
One of which he said that they're never found because they eat there own dead, but in another topic he recently started (which you can see by clicking on his username and reading his recently started topics) you can see that he says the dragons bodies haven't been found simply because they haven't died.
One of which he said that they're never found because they eat there own dead, but in another topic he recently started (which you can see by clicking on his username and reading his recently started topics) you can see that he says the dragons bodies haven't been found simply because they haven't died.
Like i said, people want to believe, as always. We will "comb" our imagination for proof.
QUOTE(Rojiva @ Sep 30 2007, 02:51 AM)
Okay, so your stating that it isnt a DRAGON.
Do you know what a dragon looks like?, or do you simply think its a big dinosaur like beast with wings?
Mayb they dive and swimmed under water with their big wings?(if they have that geometry)
How can you even state that there are no such thing as dragons?
Everything can exist, cus we cant prove that it didint.
We cant prove that it exist, neither prove that it dont exist, but we must go onwards with the believe that anything is possible if we want to continue researching.
Do you know what a dragon looks like?, or do you simply think its a big dinosaur like beast with wings?
Mayb they dive and swimmed under water with their big wings?(if they have that geometry)
How can you even state that there are no such thing as dragons?
Everything can exist, cus we cant prove that it didint.
We cant prove that it exist, neither prove that it dont exist, but we must go onwards with the believe that anything is possible if we want to continue researching.
Okay, no one can be 100% sure about anything. But where is the proof that distinguishes dragons from dinosaurs - which imo are the most likely candidate. "It spits fire and flies" seems like very typical exaggeration thats easily attributed to ancient people.
QUOTE(JC Denton @ Oct 1 2007, 04:36 AM)
xl. Because the only way into the loch for any aquatic creature would have been from the sea after the last ice age via the River Ness, it is now known that the monster, if there is one, could not be an invertebrate or amphibian because neither of those could make the sudden transition from salt to fresh water.
xli. If the monster were a mammal the intensive surface surveillance would have solved the mystery in the sixties because mammals breath air and must surface regularly.
xlii. The low ambient temperature of Loch Ness rules out cold-blooded reptiles as the identity of the monster. Warm-blooded reptiles, if they existed at all, would have needed to surface as regularly as mammals and the identity would have been solved long ago.
Source.
xli. If the monster were a mammal the intensive surface surveillance would have solved the mystery in the sixties because mammals breath air and must surface regularly.
xlii. The low ambient temperature of Loch Ness rules out cold-blooded reptiles as the identity of the monster. Warm-blooded reptiles, if they existed at all, would have needed to surface as regularly as mammals and the identity would have been solved long ago.
Source.
We also must not overlook one great factor which is money, gained from a tourist attraction.
QUOTE(JC Denton @ Oct 1 2007, 02:29 AM)
But is it big enough to hide something the size of the Loch Ness monster, and it's activity?
Also, are there any documentation of caves and such in Loch Ness?
Also, are there any documentation of caves and such in Loch Ness?
"It holds 263 thousand million cubic feet of water which is around 16 million 430 thousand million gallons of water with a surface area of 14000 acres and could hold the population of the world 10 times over."
So yes, I think its big enough!
Yes, there have been HUGE caverns found underwater:
http://www.nessie.co.uk/htm/about_loch_ness/lochness.html
QUOTE(BellaTrixie @ Oct 1 2007, 12:51 PM)
"It holds 263 thousand million cubic feet of water which is around 16 million 430 thousand million gallons of water with a surface area of 14000 acres and could hold the population of the world 10 times over."
So yes, I think its big enough!
Yes, there have been HUGE caverns found underwater:
http://www.nessie.co.uk/htm/about_loch_ness/lochness.html
So yes, I think its big enough!
Yes, there have been HUGE caverns found underwater:
http://www.nessie.co.uk/htm/about_loch_ness/lochness.html
Let's not hold back now, what do you think it is? Eel, Hagfish, Sturgeon, log? What? Many plausible theories have been bandied about. You obviously have one in mind. Big place, but as JC Denton said, sunlight doesn't go all the way in the loch, so the creature would in any case be around the surface-levels. A Land creature doen't fit, not with all the Nessie cams and lack of unfinished prey, which would be a might individual bite mark.
I am all for overzealous imagination.
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Sep 30 2007, 07:24 PM)
I am not contradicting myself, you are just apparently too dumb to understand.
There is no contradtiction in citing two different theories why dragon bones have not been found. One is that the dragons eat their dead, and like most predatory reptiles, can completely dissolve bones, and the other is that they many not die, as many legends allude to. One does not contradict the other, maybe you do not understand what this word means.
You apparenlty do not understand enough about Judao-Christian religion to understand what I was explaining. It has nothing to do with Jesus. On the contrary, the cannanites, hebrews and sumerians all had dragons that assisted in the development of a specific tribe or city state, but these were not the true creator God. To the Hebrews these creatures were called Bene Elohim, meaning "Sons of God". But these are not literal biological sons, but ancient created servants possibly dating back to the mesoazoic era. No zombies guy.
There is no contradtiction in citing two different theories why dragon bones have not been found. One is that the dragons eat their dead, and like most predatory reptiles, can completely dissolve bones, and the other is that they many not die, as many legends allude to. One does not contradict the other, maybe you do not understand what this word means.
You apparenlty do not understand enough about Judao-Christian religion to understand what I was explaining. It has nothing to do with Jesus. On the contrary, the cannanites, hebrews and sumerians all had dragons that assisted in the development of a specific tribe or city state, but these were not the true creator God. To the Hebrews these creatures were called Bene Elohim, meaning "Sons of God". But these are not literal biological sons, but ancient created servants possibly dating back to the mesoazoic era. No zombies guy.
Theories require factual evidence. So where is the evidence for these theories?
Agreed.
I just think it's funny: our ancestors must have had more imagination than we give credit for. If you ever find yourself in Scotland, try and make a point of going to the Pictish stones museum in Meigle. Some pretty eye-opening things there (and also get in touch with me if you fancy, I've got more than a few stories of folklore).
If our ancient ancestors created all these statues, carvings etc, based on things they saw, and saw alone, then it must have been a boring place. Obviously creativity must have evolved during the 19th Century, everythign going before it all the absolute truth!
In what way do those theories not contradict themselves!? Maybe I'm too dumb to understand, but if they eat their dead, then obviously dragons, according to that theory, die. The other says that dragons may not die (which already makes it that little bit less solid, but let's not worry about that just now, and take it that they do not die!). So one says they die, the other says they don't. Am I missing something, because that sounds awfully like a contradiction to me.
If our ancient ancestors created all these statues, carvings etc, based on things they saw, and saw alone, then it must have been a boring place. Obviously creativity must have evolved during the 19th Century, everythign going before it all the absolute truth!
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Oct 1 2007, 01:24 AM)
I am not contradicting myself, you are just apparently too dumb to understand.
There is no contradtiction in citing two different theories why dragon bones have not been found. One is that the dragons eat their dead, and like most predatory reptiles, can completely dissolve bones, and the other is that they many not die, as many legends allude to. One does not contradict the other, maybe you do not understand what this word means.
There is no contradtiction in citing two different theories why dragon bones have not been found. One is that the dragons eat their dead, and like most predatory reptiles, can completely dissolve bones, and the other is that they many not die, as many legends allude to. One does not contradict the other, maybe you do not understand what this word means.
In what way do those theories not contradict themselves!? Maybe I'm too dumb to understand, but if they eat their dead, then obviously dragons, according to that theory, die. The other says that dragons may not die (which already makes it that little bit less solid, but let's not worry about that just now, and take it that they do not die!). So one says they die, the other says they don't. Am I missing something, because that sounds awfully like a contradiction to me.
QUOTE(JC Denton @ Sep 30 2007, 09:36 PM)
xl. Because the only way into the loch for any aquatic creature would have been from the sea after the last ice age via the River Ness, it is now known that the monster, if there is one, could not be an invertebrate or amphibian because neither of those could make the sudden transition from salt to fresh water.
xli. If the monster were a mammal the intensive surface surveillance would have solved the mystery in the sixties because mammals breath air and must surface regularly.
xlii. The low ambient temperature of Loch Ness rules out cold-blooded reptiles as the identity of the monster. Warm-blooded reptiles, if they existed at all, would have needed to surface as regularly as mammals and the identity would have been solved long ago.
Source.
xli. If the monster were a mammal the intensive surface surveillance would have solved the mystery in the sixties because mammals breath air and must surface regularly.
xlii. The low ambient temperature of Loch Ness rules out cold-blooded reptiles as the identity of the monster. Warm-blooded reptiles, if they existed at all, would have needed to surface as regularly as mammals and the identity would have been solved long ago.
Source.
wrong on all counts.
Crocodilians, as just one example, if they choose to be secretive, sometimes only put only the tips of their snouts above the water to get air, and are therefore virtually undetectable.
Some sea turtles and pond turtles thrive in climates just as cold as loch ness, and as ectotherms, require little food.
Several reports (long before LN was a tourist attraction) sight the creature on land, invalidating all of the sonar investigations. I have read that Sonar pings bother whales, so if they bothered Nessie and her kind, they would simply leave the water. Much of the area around the loch is rugged, dense woodland I understand, where the creatures may also feed on deer which apparently are quite common.
I agree with DC with regards to crocodilians. You really do not see them til the las minute. If something has nostrils on the top of it's snout it does not need to surface save for a few tens of millimetres.
QUOTE(Urisk @ Oct 1 2007, 05:45 AM)
I just think it's funny: our ancestors must have had more imagination than we give credit for. If you ever find yourself in Scotland, try and make a point of going to the Pictish stones museum in Meigle. Some pretty eye-opening things there (and also get in touch with me if you fancy, I've got more than a few stories of folklore).
If our ancient ancestors created all these statues, carvings etc, based on things they saw, and saw alone, then it must have been a boring place. Obviously creativity must have evolved during the 19th Century, everythign going before it all the absolute truth!
In what way do those theories not contradict themselves!? Maybe I'm too dumb to understand, but if they eat their dead, then obviously dragons, according to that theory, die. The other says that dragons may not die (which already makes it that little bit less solid, but let's not worry about that just now, and take it that they do not die!). So one says they die, the other says they don't. Am I missing something, because that sounds awfully like a contradiction to me.
If our ancient ancestors created all these statues, carvings etc, based on things they saw, and saw alone, then it must have been a boring place. Obviously creativity must have evolved during the 19th Century, everythign going before it all the absolute truth!
In what way do those theories not contradict themselves!? Maybe I'm too dumb to understand, but if they eat their dead, then obviously dragons, according to that theory, die. The other says that dragons may not die (which already makes it that little bit less solid, but let's not worry about that just now, and take it that they do not die!). So one says they die, the other says they don't. Am I missing something, because that sounds awfully like a contradiction to me.
Both statments poise theories as to why people have recorded seeing dragons for as long as there has been recorded history, yet why there is no physical evidence of their existence. They are mutually supportive of the basic premise that the existence of dragons cannot be dismissed simply because we have not found their remains. And if rare creatures to begin with, their remains would be extremely rare to begin with. For example, the Coelecanth is unknown in the fossil record after the KT event, yet hundreds of millions, even billions, had to have lived and died in the past 65 million years in order to be here today, as they are.
So this conclusively proves that rare animals could have survived for 65 MILLION YEARS without leaving a SINGLE BIT OF FOSSIL EVIDENCE. No sceptic can deny this fact, and viertually every dragon is associated with water. It is only human nature to now consider Nessie a known, prehistoric creature, than call here something mythical as our ancestor's would have, a "dragon".
QUOTE(DarkSide @ Sep 30 2007, 09:28 PM)
Not necessarily. There are plenty of cold-blooded animals that live in temperate climates, like snakes in Canada, etc. But I digress.
DC!
Fair enough. I will accept that answer.
BUT
I am still not impressed with how you have taken some question. When asked for sources of information (textbooks, reknowned scientists, and historians, the publishers and ilustrators of your supposed book, and areas in scriptures and bibles to refer to) you generally ignore the question, only going on to say stuff that you could just be spewing out from your brain. I have read a fair bit of your posts and probably seen you say the same thing about 10 times maybe.
So becuase of this, I think it takes away from your credibility, if you think its to tender of a subject to be referred too in a post feel free to PM me with a list of your sources.
-Joel.
P.s. I'm not a religious kind of guy, I look at things at more of an evolutionary standing point if you haven't noticed
P.s.s. DC, I don't see why you always find it necessary to attack people debating with you personally. You could hurt someone's feelings, plus you've been warned about it before.
DC!
Fair enough. I will accept that answer.
BUT
I am still not impressed with how you have taken some question. When asked for sources of information (textbooks, reknowned scientists, and historians, the publishers and ilustrators of your supposed book, and areas in scriptures and bibles to refer to) you generally ignore the question, only going on to say stuff that you could just be spewing out from your brain. I have read a fair bit of your posts and probably seen you say the same thing about 10 times maybe.
So becuase of this, I think it takes away from your credibility, if you think its to tender of a subject to be referred too in a post feel free to PM me with a list of your sources.
-Joel.
P.s. I'm not a religious kind of guy, I look at things at more of an evolutionary standing point if you haven't noticed
P.s.s. DC, I don't see why you always find it necessary to attack people debating with you personally. You could hurt someone's feelings, plus you've been warned about it before.
"if you are not "a religous type of guy" why bother asking me for scriptural references. I DO INDEED cite these in the appropriate forums. So if you want Biblical sources you will find them in the threads related to dragons in the Spirituality and Religion sections. There are at least 2 ungoing threads on this subject right now. But despite the biblical references to dragons, I still maintain evolution is real, and that the earth is billions of years old. In fact it is becasue of evolution that there IS heavenly creatures we know today as dragons. If the fundamental Christian nonsense were true, there would not be any need for dragons.
I have responded to specific questions with specific sources. And if you read all of my previous posts, all of your questions have already been answered.
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Oct 1 2007, 12:33 PM)
Both statments poise theories as to why people have recorded seeing dragons for as long as there has been recorded history, yet why there is no physical evidence of their existence. They are mutually supportive of the basic premise that the existence of dragons cannot be dismissed simply because we have not found their remains. And if rare creatures to begin with, their remains would be extremely rare to begin with. For example, the Coelecanth is unknown in the fossil record after the KT event, yet hundreds of millions, even billions, had to have lived and died in the past 65 million years in order to be here today, as they are.
So this conclusively proves that rare animals could have survived for 65 MILLION YEARS without leaving a SINGLE BIT OF FOSSIL EVIDENCE. No sceptic can deny this fact, and viertually every dragon is associated with water. It is only human nature to now consider Nessie a known, prehistoric creature, than call here something mythical as our ancestor's would have, a "dragon".
So this conclusively proves that rare animals could have survived for 65 MILLION YEARS without leaving a SINGLE BIT OF FOSSIL EVIDENCE. No sceptic can deny this fact, and viertually every dragon is associated with water. It is only human nature to now consider Nessie a known, prehistoric creature, than call here something mythical as our ancestor's would have, a "dragon".
They are both two theories designed to contemplate why dragon fossils have never been found, btu they are both totally different. Sure, the conclusion of both may be the same (ie no fossils), but the mthods totally contradict. You can't have one theory that dictates that dragons eat their dead, and have it supported by one that says dragons HAVE NO dead, because there is no death among dragons. It's the same as Creationism versus Evolution. Both describe why we are here (to a certain extent), but completely contradict each other (and I mean the Creationist theory, not what is actually written in the Bible).
I agree Nessie exist! BUT, I don't agree being it's a plesiosaur, dragon or monster. I'd agree more if Nessie might be a new animal, probably aquatic mammal, or just a natural phenomenon. I mean, come on, there has to be a sensible explanation for this one!
If you people believe in "Dragons" then theres no point in arguing with you......... 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.