This is a baby sea monster that was found dead near a lake. It was stuffed and taken to a creation evidence museum in Texas(i think). Has any one been to that museum and seen it? Why don't they do DNA testings? It doesn't look like a fake or a decomposed animal, it looks real.

Honestly that just looks like an onyx carving... or maybe even an iron sculpture.

Source:

http://www.s8int.com/dino2.html


CryptoRay, please post your sources and the site where you get your information/image. It's difficult to take a image seriously when there is not even a link to go with it.

...........

tihs is a sculpture. it's REAL alright, but it'sa real sculpture. no wwya on earth this was once alive

How are you so certain that its fake?

It's just so shiny and ill-shaped, like a very primitive carving. It really doens't look like a living animal at all.

look at how the body is posed. it's so curvacious and perfectly round. plus it's super shiny. usually stuffed animals skin loses it's sheen. another reason i think it's fake is there is no apparent crumpling on the skin. even animals that have been stuffed have apparent crumpling on the skin. it's just too perfect in form to have been alive once

how are you certain its real. i think it looks exactly like a statue, but im not questioning you.

I also think it looks just like an Onyx carving or even varnished wood.

But its in a museum and i think the museum would have known if it was just a statue.

thats a wonderful sculpture...

This is a good point, unfortunately the museum is not exactly reputable. No offense to the Creationists on this forum, but much of their presumptions are far from based in scientific fact.

This is the museum it is in:

http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html


The CREATION EVIDENCE museum.
Not a real museum.

That alone, is enough for me to say without a doubt it's 100% fake.

museums also have statues of dinaurs. are those stuffed too? no way this thing is real

Are you SURE it's being billed as real? To me it looks like something i could get at a gift shop. i also think that if it was found dead and stuffed, again, it would be somewhere else besides online. Like CNN.

I have a basic knowledge of biology. I am pretty good with "This animal has that adaptation because... so they cannot do... because..., but they cand do... because...". still, i do not claim to be an expert...but there is something about the shape of the body that strikes me as odd. I guess the head is too big and the flippers too small, but because of the quality, i cant tell.

I'm going with the sculpture theory...

By all means, tell me how a still-living (albeit taxidermified) dinosaru proves anything.

And while youre at it, if there was NOTHING...what went bang?

a better quesion for you CRypto Ray: Why do u think this is REAL???

Wow u realy think thats real? no offence but the squatters here are smartter

The good people at the Creation Evidence museum think it's real.

This worse than the dragon in the jar....then again people actually believed that too !!!

Hey, that dragon was convincing. Very sad for someone like me, but convincing.

I'm still trying to track down the book he was trying to promote...

I think it is real because the people at the museum think its real, and i think they know the difference between a real animal and a sculpture. Just because it looks shiny doesn't mean its a sculpture, many animals look shiny, like amphibians. But I'm not saying you have to believe its real, anyone can believe in what ever they want.

okay, but even stuffed amphibians lose their sheen. the only animals that stay shiny when stuffed are insects, and tha'ts bcuz of the carapaces. skin will not sta shiny. plus look at how it's made. i've been around this board a lot longer, enough to know a fake when i see it. plus i was also one of the leaders in the crypto boards back in the day. if you look at the evidence, the idea that it's real isn't plausible. u said u think it's real bcuz the museum people think it's real, but what evidence do u have to support the fact that it's real?

The same museum also has paintings of people riding dinosaurs, claiming it as evidence of creationalism, and saying it is real.

Believing it is real because the museum says so, is quite the mistake i'm afraid.

how does someone Mistake that for something real?

There was a scene in one of the Replica books where she went back in time and met cave people (humans and monkeys and apes and Bigfeet have never been my interest, but i seem to recall her saying this was the subspecies that later went extinct) and they used dinosaurs to travel from place to place.

Like the Flintstones, Amy said.

^^; Fiction, I know, but it was cute. There's also several kinds of extinct. One is "so far gone it can't breed without getting inbred, and it'll go extinct anyway", cheetah. the other one is like the dodo, completely gone.

I doubt that all dinosaurs vanished completely within the same five minites, but i doubt even more that this thing is a dinosaur.

No one believes they vanished within minutes, or even years. They died out over the course of probably a good million years or so, due to a varying number of reasosns we still can't fully explain.

And yes, it is entirely reasonable to assume that they didn't all just die.

However, rodents when dinosaurs were alive, over 60 or so million years of evolution, turned into primates. I don't think it's possible that a dinosaur living today would resemble anything close to what they did then. Especially when you consider the massive number of similarities between todays lizards and birds. Perhaps dinosaurs did not die out at all, they just evolved.

a big problem i have with Nessie being a plesiosaur. I also find it hard to beleive that evolution can be as drastic as from single-celled organisms to humans, period. I dont see how the length of scales can make that much a difference on the trip to feathers.

Well the material the feather itself is made from is exactly the same as what scales are made from, so technically there is no cellular change at all, it's just like ice crystals forming on a window. You can see them branch out etc.

I know. But how does one raptor being born with scales three centimeters long as a freak event lead to birds? I don't see how a change that small will do anything significant. There would have to be several with unusually long scales born close enough to interbreed over several generations.

So maybe she was a prehistoric fish and now she's a big lumpy dinosaur thing in loch ness?

I dont see how it's possible. I can see changes in size, possibly, if there was enough diversity in size, but i dont see how much else is a big enough deal to cause a species change. I would expect some kind of change, but nothing as drastic as from fish to plesiosaur

Thats a nice little sculpture there. I'm stuck on how anyone could think that it was once a living thing...That museum seems a bit looney if you ask me.

It wouldn't really be a plesiosaur though would it?

Um...no...guess not.

Lemme rephrase that: i dont see how a fish can go through enough drastic changes to become plesiosaur-like.

Maybe it was like.. stergon like and it evolved to have humps and a longer neck-tail ish?

I really am kind of making up stuff rofl. >>

This could easily become a Creationist vs Darwinist flamewar, but that is not this type of board fortunately. [true] Creationists believe that the dinosaurs died out 6000 years ago when the Earth was formed, and no scientific evidence will sway them from that belief. That is why anything from this source (IMO) needs to be immediately proven as a fake, and then we have to work to prove that it is real. Not to mention it is obviously a sculpture.

Keep in mind when I say this, I was born, raised and still am a practicing Roman Catholic. Also keep in mind that I have my degrees in Anthropology and Archaeology.

I tend to take the Creationism (NOT 6000 YEARS AGO) creating Darwinism approach, which really lends itself to a more educational reaction to new findings.

/Just my .02

No, not at all, that is not how evolution works hon, not even close.

Evolution is slow adaption to changing environments. It takes millions of years.
I do not believe that raptors suddenly grew feathers at all. It would have been the much smaller chicken-sized dinos, they would have started taking to trees to avoid predators, which over generations, caused them to start adapting to tree-living life; their bones would have become hollow and brittle, and their scales would have grown into feathers to help make them even lighter for jumping from tree to tree. Also, with the changing climate feathers would have helped insulate the creature.

I just don't understand...i dont see how one slight change could be felt that much. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I understand, it's a difficult thing to understand.

Another thing i don't understand is how a still-living dinosaur proves anything. there's two ways to look at that: 1. Dinosaurs just didn't go extinct. 2. God created us at the same time and for some reason dinosaurs have just been avoiding us since Adam and Eve left the Garden.

You know what a still-living dinosaur proves? Dinosaurs are still around.

That is the best thing I've heard here yet. I started looking at other things on that page, and they are extremely fundamental creationists. I myself believe in creation, but I don't believe that it has to conflict with evolution.



Basically saying spontaneous generation is real, is tantmount to saying that that everything science has siad is wrong. Spontaneous Generation was firt thought up when people left meat outside, and then returned later to find maggots coming out of it. Later it was figured out that flys laid their eggs in the meat and the maggots hatched out. There is a big difference between that and rats just popping up.

Evolutionists do not explain the appearance of life by Spontaneous Generation. actually most will admit that they don't know how it happened.

But back to topic, that thing is probably fake. There have been "real" baby sea serpents in the past, but they were deformed snakes or lizards.