Almost.
Well said

Do you have a link, I take you do not mean the Bili_Ape as your description sounds different. Smaller? I would be very interested in reading about this. Thanks for the info.

Yo Cap.
I am liking the Yo Psyche too. I know where you are coming from friend.

You never cease to amaze me, LOL, I do in fact play guitar!, I toured the East Coast of Australia for 12 years with several bands as a lead player. Real big on the Les Paul Marshall combo. My Fav axe is a 1994 Studio Les Paul in translucent blue that I have owned from new Always ran it behind a 1972 all valve 50W Marshall head pushing a splitable Marshall quad. Splitting helps with the smaller venues
If you ever drop by Oz, we gotta get together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lovin the song Hehe, I told you so !! You crack me up! Now it in song, it's concrete!

Right with you on the Mokele thing. If we find a pygmy chimp in the middle of the jungle, where is the animal that stops the flow of rivers? Sort of like that blonde Lobster find. Tiny little thing in the midle of nowhere and people go, you never know........might be an evolved gilled dancing titanosaur nestled in the mud in the cavern that connects Loch Ness to the North Pole that only feed once every three hundered years and is invisible..........meh......maybe some smaller things, but I don't think we are likely to stumble on a living Sauropod hey. Great legend, but pretty unlikely. Sauropods feet don't like sinking mud water environments anyways.

YOU ROCK MUSIC ROCKS. GUITARS ROCK

Good point. A big sauropod would be just plain too heavy. BTW, I play guitar too, I am gonna start a thread in Hobbies and Interest for it. You should come post.

I'll be there Music is the gift that just keeps giving

Yes, Sauropods did not have a metacarpal sread like Rhinos or elephants to distribute the weight. Their feet were more similar to a modern horse, more of a straight down carpus. They would sink straight into the boggy Cammeroon river system. Considering the habitat, and that Mokele is supposedly herbivorous, and semi-aquatic, a Rhino seems a good bet.

I see, I was a guitar player on a band back on high school. I played a sweet white brown Epiphone Les Pauls! Seems like we have some common on this one. However we disbanded and right now I'm trying to play music again...but this time, I play bass! Hahaha! Trying something new! And sure, I'll definitely let you know anytime I'm going to OZ. We're not that far apart aren't we? I mean, I live on the island just north from where you live!

Back to topic. It is very understandable to discover a small to medium sized new animals these days. But a big one would surely need a lot of favor. An animal this big, especially dubbed "who stops the flow of rivers" Can't be just a small, raccoon sized creature, isn't it?

I am amazed at how long this topic has kept going! ANnd I agree that it would be hard for an animal of this size to hide........ BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE

Well, I beg to differ. People have been doing expeditions in the congo for a long time. A population of something of this size would not still be eluding people.

Or the simple fact that dinosaurs and their close relatives don't exist anymore

And the latest one did not even go ahead. That '07 Marcy Milt expedition seems to have gone very quiet. I have searched Cryptomundo, but no further news on it. Maybe they already found a Mokele-Rhino in '06.

Hi Frogfish

Long time no see, welcome back friend

Well for one, I grew up in south africa, where mokele mbembe has many times been sighted, including by me. And my father was scottish and has posted many pictures on websites of nessie. Both creatures are originally termed behemoth and leviathon, yes in the bible. How did they survive when other dinos supposedly became extinct? Read the dang bible, two of every animal was boarded except the marine animals who would survive. If there was a freaking comet, half the earth would be gone, sorry people rock does not regenerate. And the water canopy described in the bibel ensured all animals and people would live much longer and grow much bigger, hence our oddly sized human fossils as well as dino and human fossils in same rock layers.

Please don't tell me you just said human and rock fossils in the same strata. Take a geology class you half-wit.

Mmm...I don't read bible, I mean, I read bible, but I don't believe it. Mostly because I'm a moslem. But that's not the thing. The thing is, that this creature is very overrated and the fact that nobody has exactly seen and describe it correctly, Most description only stated that they're huge and quadrupeds, other features like long neck, sharp teeths, horns etc are sooo varied that this leaves a question marks. How can a single creature of the same gnus be so different in people's eyes?

if you have been actually digging fossils and can prove me wrong, then do it. But having seen human artifacts in the same rock layer right next to dino prints and eggs, etc, I believe no matter what you think that our so called scientists are missing something. And apparently so are you.

Wow. Dinosaurs did not live amongst people and there is no evidence to suggest it. Bones have not been found in the same rock layers. You are making very bold and ludacris statements with absolute nothing to back them up.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4677/

These are only a couple sites of a dig that was found. Explain that genius. Oh, and btw, my husband is an archeologist, so I do know a thing or two about geology.

I see...ditches. By the way, I've seen a few of these 'footprints'...why are they usually walking along side the dinosaur? As though that person is on a friendly stroll with a velociraptor?

And, I may be wrong here, but...isn't it in the realm of possibility that those particular sites...may possibly be...biased? Just going out on a limb...

Those are horrible sites to use as a source. There are tons of ice-age creatures that could have made those tracks (assuming those are legit).

So it just isn't possible for behemoth and leviathon could be referring to an elephant? That would just be crazy.

I agree. In the time it would have been around, it could have EASILY adapted to life in a soft ground region, or don't any of you nay sayers belive in adaptation/evolution?

It was only last year that they photographed that Sumatran Rhino, remember. Sure there were sightings by villagers, but they are only villagers right? (Sarcasm)


Maybe you could tell us of your encounter and if you know where to look for any pictures you could point everyone toward them?


Yeah, it would be interesting to know what happened with that.

Have they been dated? Because your husband is an "archaeologist," you should know a thing or two about radiometric dating. It doesn't lie. Ask a physicist.

And yes, I have been digging for fossils. Really fun stuff.


Yes, they are biased. It is agenda-driven research. Kinda like a neo-nazi denying the Holocaust.

EDIT: nevermind....

Well lets see, behemoth is said to have a tail that moves as a cedar tree-as in the size of a tree. Last time I checked elephants do not have such sized tails. But mokele mbembe as I've seen is pretty much a small version of the idea of a brontosaurus and does have a large tail and strong hind legs to lift himself up so his mouth can reach leaves in the high part of trees. Oh, and is something I wanted to add here too. The bible refers to the flying serpents, also known often as pteradactyls. This picture is what they found in a fossil, an unhatched pterosaur.


http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040607/images/fossil_180.jpg

Now compare that to this story of a woman who saved a baby pterosaur from her cat, poor thing. I think he's kind of adorable.

http://www.s8int.com/dino11.html

And it has also been proven by various scientists that radiometric dating while sometimes reliable, isn't always; the rate of decay too often varies day to day as the weather and other such circumstances changes. And as to the age of the earth, have you even realized the sun is shrinking five feet per year and has been since Plato discovered the planets, making it likely it has been doing such since the beginning? At a rate of five feet per hour, less than ten million years ago it would have been large and powerful enough to melt the earth. And the moon as it is moving two inches per year further from earth, 3 million years ago it would have caused waves large enough to flood the earth at high tide twice a day. The earth's rotation is also slowing at a rate of twenty mph per year. 5 million years ago, it would have spun so fast we'd be floating in outer space.

That fossil has nothing to with anything. Yes, ptersosaurs existed, that is all that fossil shows.


I just typed "shrinking sun" into google, and guess what. Every site result was YEC sites. That is no coincendence. Please try to get info from non adenda-driven websites.

Why does anytime we talk about the possibility of living dinosaurs, there's always someone that comes up with the line "from the Bible"? I'm not being racist or anti Christian here, but this thread was not only for Christians. We also got Moslems, Jews, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist and Rockstars. Because it is kinda unfair to talk about what my or your religion say concerning this matter, especially when someone is not familiar with Bible? I mean, I can recite a verse or two from the Holy Koran, but I'll left it where it supposed to be. I never really take anything from a holy book for scientific talks. The holy books (such as Koran and Bible) are something holy to you and to other fellow religious people, I just don't really enjoy the idea of toying up (no matter what you call it) science with the holy books.

Now back again, I want to question you then Azurus, you've stated before that you and your dad both had seen the Mokele Mbembe, can you exactly described it, having it being observed by you several times, this question shouldn't be too hard to answer. Second of all, ever actually think that the human's footprints alongside the dino's footprints can actually be of a dino's instead of a man? Think about Iguanodons or Maiasaurs, ask your husband for this possibility. Thank you.

Yes, radiometric dating can't narrow down the exact time, but it can give a ballpark estimate accurate within a few hundred thousand years. So let me guess, you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that a biblical deluge actually happened.


Give us unbiased sources, and we will be more inclined to believe you and your "enlightened" knowledge. Give us an article from a peer-reviewed journal. You're just trying to push your ridiculous creationist beliefs. Be gone.

Like I said I knew this before I was christian. Evolutionists have no proof at all of their theory except by what they choose to publish, which is nothing that would disprove them, and they have no actual transmutated species in their fossils to prove these species evolved somehow. Some investigators you are, taking only small pieces of evidence and not even comparing or doing the total research needed to see what's right and what is wrong. Even taking God and th bible out of the picture what do you have? Water-layed rock layers, the grand canyon and others have rock layers made by water-laid sediment. How the hell does that happen with a meteor crash? Even a billion years of rain and mud cannot do it so that when you dig up a few layers, a tree is standing vertically within five or six or even sometimes up to 13 layers. Each layer is supposedly a different age of our world, that is one oooooolllllddd tree. Here's a question, do you believe there are really dragons?

Oh, and Capo, not to push religion, but the bible is the oldest and most correct bit of history there is that is more than 2000 years old.. Not only does it have scripture but it describes various Israelic wars and such in bloody detail as well as the fall of many kings more accurately then any history book which is why some high school history classes refer to it in the books while keeping out scripture. There is also mention of things that have happened within the last 2 decades that were predicted in the bible. Reference to Mokele mbembe and the loch ness monster is in there as well as talk of what is often talked of as a unicorn but is in fact an extinct wild oxen that was hunted and died out about 60 years ago, and poisonous reptiles that were much larger back then which are in fact gila monsters and the mexican beaded lizard of today. Dinosaurs described in there have been sighted by various cultures and there are cave drawings of every one while evolutionism says dinos died out billions of years ago and could not co exist with humans in any way, even a carefully executed way of life, but is proven wrong in many dig sites. There are a few sites where there is a very clear imprint of a human foot with five toes, there are no-not a single one-bone structures of a five toed dinosaur that even closely resembled the flat structure of a human foot.

And yes, I can describe the mokele mbembe. There were about five that I saw at different times, they were one family, I know there are others but the local tribe there protects them and won't allow pictures, but my mother was a friend and we were going to try and go back this summer to see how the family is doing. Anyways, the head of the "herd" I guess is the way to put it was about only 7 feet tall from ground to top of his head. His neck was about 3 feet long and his head was round with a short rounded snout and smooth teeth. He had black-blue eyes, that's what they looked like in bright lights anyways, otherwise just black. His back was slightly rounded but not like a hump, more like a cat, and he even flexed his back a little like one when he went to lay down on the grass. His tail was thick at the base but tapered to the tip like a normal lizard and it was close to 3.5 to 4 feet long. He had thick round legs and huge feet that were four toed and the toes were somewhat raised like an arched foot, with a large rounded heel. When he stood on his back legs to reach his mouth up to the high leaves of trees, he was close to 9 feet tall and very strong. He had a large belly but was flat and you could see the big bones of his ribs and his spine. The scales looked irridescent in the light, like a reticulated python's do, I always describe it that way cause my pet snake was a retic and I loved how her scales looked after she shed, and I think mokele mbembe is gorgeous. But in shadow the scales are more beige and red-clay colored with a tinge of grey. His underbelly is the same color. The youngest hatchling last time I saw her, I think she was female but I don't know for sure, was no more then three feet tall and four feet long from chest to tip of tail and her scales were more pale grey-green, the older hatchlings had been the same color when they were younger but gradually their scales changed color. Her neck was much shorter as a hatchling as well, no more than maybe two feet long.

There were supposedly other dinosaurs living in south africa too, but they are supposed to be much smaller, like the small v. raptor variety and such. But they are in parts of south africa I never visited before I came to america with my family. I can try to get more information for you guys, and if I can prove that I am without a doubt correct, what would you say then?

Hey bball, I wanted to ask, why is it you are ok with the possibility of the loch ness monster being a pleseosaur, a still living fossil, but not a still living fossil of a pterosaur? You guys search for proof of paranormal, wouldn't that be a thing for a parnormal investigator to look into, not discredit and just shrug saying that's nothing? And another thing, did you notice the three sites strongly against creationism? They are arguing quite strongly against the logic of the shrinking sun and such. If it was such an impossibility, why argue so diligently against it if it would have no credibility at all? Why see it as such a threat to their theories if it was so ridiculous? And if we are products of random evolution and chance, then couldn't we make up our own rules and do what we wish because in the end there is no real consequence and no real law because it will only change again as we continue to evolve?

actually a paranormal investigator Might look into that. but most likely a cryptozoologist, thats their thing but nice try.
and some people are forgetting things about the mokele-mbembe and the people who see it. for example, when people asked the inhabitants what they saw, they would all pick out the same pictures of what looked like a sauropod (like what was called the brontosaurus). despite the fact these natives had NO knowledge of palaentology, what so ever. theyve never seen these dinos. but they could pick out what they kept claiming they see. they were all basically the same.
and yes, i doubt it was just a giraffe

I agree with you for sure. The thing is that for some reason some groups feel that if dinosaurs are still alive, that would mean that YEC beliefs are the truth. I don't see the connection.

Ummm...I am okay with the possibility, because if something is there plesiosaur cannot completely be ruled out. But I have said before a plesiousaur might not be a very good possiblity. This is because many sightings of champ and nessie are described with the animal lifting it's head out of the water, and plesiosaurs could not do that. But I don't completely dismiss it.

My problem is that your are trying to use a ptersosaur fossil and living dinosaurs to legitmize your religious beliefs. It just sounds like you have an agenda and are out to find anything that will 'prove' a young earth. And it just doesn't make sense. Living dinosaurs do not prove a young earth. There just isn't a connection. There is no reason to bring religious beliefs into the subject of living dinosaurs, that is my problem.

I don't discount the idea of some form of pterosaurs at all. In fact, I think, because of their small size and small needs as far as food, they could be the most likely living dinosaurs.


Scientist discounts the existance of dinosaurs because there is no evidence for them since about 65 million years ago. Not because they are afraid or don't want them to exist or anything like that. If there were good evidence or they did in fact exist paleontologist would be the first ones to investigate.

Actually in spite of what you guys think I haven't mentioned a young earth, I did mention things that are said to prove it is a young earth, but I never implied to prove my beliefs with dinosaurs. I only put in the stuff about the living dinos because I am interested and study such and of course you all had looked into such things. I did describe my beliefs and of course my beliefs will not change but I never tried to push it on anyone only express my opinion. I must admit I did have fun with it, I love a good debate and was actually interested in what you may come up with to prove me wrong. Apparently no one had anything new that could be said to be real proof I am wrong, only the excuse that such facts are published only on creation websites when the fact is that no evolutionist or any non-godly scientist would publish it because it could possibly prove them wrong and who wants to be forced to admit there is a god and they are responsible for what they do in life? Anyways another thing, the dead pleseosaur found in the 70's, did anyone realize that finding was published and caused a huge phenomenon everywhere but here in the USA? It was only when the internet became so widely used and such information became known to so many that scientists had to agree that there could be living fossils that survived the meteor crash, especially after finding the coelocanth-a deep water dwelling fish thought to have become extinct during the jurassic period. And I really did put on those pics of the pterosaur because I thought it was cute and wanted to know what everyone thought of this new living fossil dinosaur. My husband says I'm obsessed with all this stuff, debating as well as this type of study, even more then he is and he lives for this.

Correct. The fossil is more like proof of evolution.

Not suprising that was your main result. Only creationist sites are still pushing these outdated hypothesis as current findings. Fact of the matter is the research failed to survive the critical evaluation of the registered scientific community. I find creationist sites always seem to spout outdated theories and ideals when correct information to the contrary is readily available.

Every time I see the word Bronotsaurus I generally see a creationist somewhere. Funny that, both use outdated information and are interpreting the results of others as a means to ther own ends. Surely everyone in the world now knows the Bronotsaurs is a Apatosaurus with a Camarasaurus skull exposed in 1974?

Expanding Sun.
The original source for all this was an abstract presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in 1979, "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953" by John Eddy & Aram Boornazian. You may find it interesting to now that they never published the paper, and later retracted their own results, a minor point that seems to have escaped the creationist gaze all these years. The reaserch was not in vain, the abstract got people thinking, additional studies were made and the credibility of the original data was re-evaluated. The result is that secular shrinkage has not been substantiated, but an 80-year oscillatory behavior was discovered.
Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard, 1998, carried out a detailed study of the solar photospheric radius over a six year time frame, from 1981-1987. Their results imply a constant solar radius, within a measurement error of +/- 37 kilometers (km) over the whole 6 years. If the solar radius were in fact shrinking by 5 feet per hour, that translates into 37 km in about 2.8 years. That would impose a greater than 2-sigma systematic trend on the six year data set, an effect the proverbial blind man could hardly miss.......
And to make problems even bigger, there is some evidence that the sun actually expands periodically. E. Ribes analyzed a 53 year record of solar diameter & sunspot positions, taken during the 17th century. He shows that the sun was in all probability larger, and rotating more slowly, during the famous Maunder minimum in the sunspot cycle. More recently, observations carried out at the San Fernando Solar Observatory show the sun expanding and contracting significantly, over the roughly eleven year solar cycle. In any case, it is quite certain that today, no such systematic decrease in solar radius is happening.

Holes in evolution? Not at all, the transitinal record is quite good. There are now several known cases of species-to-species transitions that resulted in the first members of new higher taxa. Most forms of creationism hold that all "kinds" were created separately, as described in Genesis. Unfortunately there is no biological definition of "kind"; it appears to be a vague term referring to our psychological perception of types of organisms such as "dog", "tree", or "ant". In previous centuries, creationists equated "kind" to species. With the discovery of more and more evidence for derivation of one species from another, creationists bumped "kind" further up to mean higher taxonomic levels, such as "genus", or "family", though this lumps a large variety of animals in the same "kind". Some creationists say that "kind" cannot be defined in biological terms.

The Flood leaves may questions unanswered, once again, the fossil recoed jumps on in. How is it all the marsupials headed straight for good 'ol down under, while Lions, tigers etc, felt the idea ws Go West young man once released from the Ark? Why is it some kinds headed off in every direction, while the others went one direction only, with no stragglers? How did the flightless kakapo and kiwi and the wingless moas get to New Zealand? How did the salamanders, especially those without lungs, get to America? In an experiment, two salamander species with lungs could go 0.1 and 0.13 kilometers per hour for two hours. But two without lungs, who breathe only through their skin and the lining of the mouth and throat, could go only 0.05 kilometers per hour for 90 minutes and two hours, respectively, before becoming exhausted. A direct route from Ararat to the tip of Siberia is over 5500 miles. From there to their range in the United States is about 4000 miles for the slower species. The trip would take over 40 years for the faster, and over 315 years for the slower.

Men annd dinosaurs walking together? nah. For many years claims were made by strict creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds (funny how evidence from the strata layers suddenly became relevant) of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some outright hoaxes.

I do believe strongly in evolution, it is an obvious conclusion when weighing up the known current facts. That's why I do not think a Suaropod evolved to live in the swamps and rivers. Why would it? It just spent two hundred million years growing into a creature to suit it's habitat, why dismiss this habitat annd evolve for another when it's preferred habitat is merely a short migrate away? The food preference of herbivorous dinosaurs can be loosley inferred by the form of their teeth. It is probable, for example, that low-built animals like the ankylosaurs, stegosaurs, and ceratopsians fed on low shrubbery. The tall ornithopods, especially the duckbills, and the long-necked sauropods probably browsed on high branches and treetops. They were never designed to inhabit such boggy terain, and the the structure of their foot bones in the fossil record shows this. A Ceretopsian would be far more at home under such conditions.

It is also frequently ommited that when local naitives were questioned that they also pointed excitedly to a picture of a Rhinoceros. No expeditions have shown up any clues, the most recent event cancelled after a big "information gathering" forerunner 12 months before. Obviously if there was substantial evidence the expedition would have gone ahead. I'd love to have a real live Sauropod around, if not to study, just gaze in wonder at, but unfortunately when the evidence is weighed up, it is more than likely Mokele will turn out to be a garden variety Rhino. Sad as that may seem, it is realistic.

The Bible is not a valid reference of the fossil record. That is not it's purpose, nor it's intention.
And no "dead pelisiosaur" has ever been found. Ever. Only fossilised ones, way past dead. Turned to stone in fact.

Once again, you never replied, so did you think of the description, moves his tail as a cedar tree? Ever seen an elephant with a tail like that? Even the wooly mammoth was not that large. And the other description later on that this creature was king over all the beasts. The elephant is quite obviously not the largest of the animals of our world. And since this behemoth was a land dweller, it's not a whale either. But just to get your opinion, no one ever commented on my question of a belief in dragons? Would anyone like to hear what it says on that subject? I also have an input of a non-religious scientist that was not published, they are currently still puzzled on this subject.

We have a winner......




Exactly right, and no doubt the reason the 07 January expedition to the Cameroon was cancelled.

The paleontologists would be a a big race with zoologists (in fact a large chunk of the scientific community) followed by the media, private enterprise etc......

I didn't reply because your beliefs are set in stone. I am not going to argue with you about that. Perhaps they thought his trunk was his tail or things got mistranslated, I don't know. But a few lines in the Bible do not prove it was a dinosaur.

Not in this thread. There is a thread going right now about dragons. You are more than welcome to post your thoughts in there. I will be happy to read them in the dragons thread.


Edit-Phyche101-Excellent post up there.

?


No, you are using your beliefs to prove dinosaurs are still alive. Hence using quotes from the Bible and bringing up the flood.


I seem to recall, in your first post you told us to "read the dang Bible."


There is plenty of proof to prove you wrong. You just don't listen. People have been telling you all along they aren't in the same rock layers.
Earliest humans, click here it says that the earliest humans were around 195,000 years ago based on dating of bones and earth they were found in.

And the last known living dinosaurs from wikipedia, click here
It says this on that site-
"The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event was the large-scale mass extinction of animal and plant species in a geologically short period of time, approximately 65.5 million years ago (mya). It is widely known as the K–T extinction event and is associated with a geological signature, usually a thin band dated to that time and found in various parts of the world, known as the K–T boundary. K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous Period, and T is the abbreviation for the Tertiary Period. The event marks the end of the Mesozoic Era, and the beginning of the Cenozoic Era.[1]
Non-avian dinosaur fossils are only found below the K–T boundary and became extinct immediately before or during the event."

Are you satisfied? I just proved you wrong.


You are doing it again! This is exactly what I am talking. You are saying that these so called findings and 'evidence' of dinosaurs could prove your beliefs, but that just isn't the case. For the umpteenth time, there is no connection. Oh, and the reason that 'facts' are only published on creationist website is because they have agendas to prove these 'facts' to be 'facts' and the methodology used is questionable at best. Scientists have no reason to fear the existance of dinosaurs, paleotologist would absolutely love it.

There are plenty more things to prove you wrong and Pscyche101 made very good points in his post above, which you will not be able to refute. I am especially interested how you will explain what he says about the global flood.

What about what she said she saw in South Africa?

Given, I've never heard of the Mokele-Mbembe in South Africa. Isn't it mostly a temperate climate? Savanna and such?

I can not think of any other creature that looks like what she described.

Azurus, can you tell us about where you saw these creatures?

You are incorrect. If you want a scientist's view on evolution as opposed to a creationist's view, read Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. It outlines how the theory of evolution has been modified by new data. If you are truly a scientist as you claim, you should know that when a theory is first postulated, it is not set in stone and is subject to modification.

And if you don't accept evolution, then how do you explain drug-resistant bacteria?


Because people like you continue to push it.


In case you haven't noticed, we already do that. Take homosexuality for example. 200 years ago, it was a crime punishable by death. And child labor laws, 100 years ago it was perfectly fine for a 5-year-old to work a 15-hour day.

I'm sorry Azurus, but I'm not going to debate with you concerning Mokele Mbembe, no matter how valid your sightings is if you still bring around the words from the Bible. If you can read between the line, this is where I strongly put my stance that I DON'T WANT TO DEBATE ANY RELIGION. I have a great respect for the Bible as well as the Christians, I believe being a good Moslem is also to respect other's faith and treated them as your own. Therefore, I will debate only on scientific fields.

Now, to be scientific, let's continue with your testimony. What is their diet, can you tell us how do they reproduce, what have they done to avoid evolution? What species of dinosaurs they're closely related to? All based on your opinion. Thank you.

I like the "yo". I say bring back the 80s. They were radical!




Actually, I believe it was only domestic animals that 2 were required of. Maybe it's the other way around, I can't remember. As for linking the Loch Ness Monster with Leviathan. Sorry but no. If anything the Loch Ness Monster is more closely tied with either the Each Uisge or his more well-known cousin the Kelpie. It has nothing to do with the Bible. Except for one incident where it supposedly came into contact with St Columba. But then, at this time Cuchullain was a demi-god who killed entire armies single-handed. Remember that the Celtic bards would sing and tell great, heroic stories about individuals so that they could live on as heroes, the songs and sonnets becomming more and more legendary and epic as they got passed down.

Not where Mokele is suppposed to reside. Shame you have missed all the threads on this beastie, I have started a couple myself.

According the the naitive accounts, it travels between the lake systems and rivers and feeds on the local Molambo plant.

In case anyone else has ot heard of the Mokele Mbembe legend,

Wiki Page

Mokele Website

Cryptomundo Link - the fizzer expedition I keep whining about...

Google sesarch, more links than you can poke a Sauropod at.

I became fascinated by the legend a few years ago. I like to think of myself as an ametuer paleontologist and the idea of a living dinosaur is more than fascinating. To me, it would be a real big deal. Some accounts I admit are convincing, take the missionary witnesses, these are men educated in the Western world and should know a Rhino froma Sauropod. Still, the evidence against is even more overwhelming. A Dinosaur that is not suited to an environent, in an environment that is harsh. The thickness of a rainforest has no bearing on that rainforest's ability to withstand climate changes. Rainforests are very delicate ecosystems that alter dramatically in response to even slight changes, as is apparent in the case of contemporary rainforests. A rainforest, in fact, is arguably the least likely environment to withstand extreme ecological changes a desert or ocean would arguably be much better locations for animals to exist continuously for 65 million years

No disrespect intended, but I would take this sighting with a grain of salt.

First time I have heard of that one but I love Nessy...I have seen the scam and who pulled the Nessy story off...But it is still all neat....something has to be out there, yeah?

Hope you enjoyed the above links then

No, something does not have to be out there, the BBC thought so, they set 600 sonar beams to scour the lake - nothing

BBC Loch Ness Search

Search for Nessie Ends

But they did find a Toad at a suprising depth Link

It is not a pelisiosaur. That is such a silly assumption, I do not know why in this day and age it can still be bandied around as a possibility. It is about as possible as Bigfoot in a wetsuit.
If anything of substantial size is in the Loch, it will be a Sturgeoen, an Eel or a type of hagfish. Most likely wishful thinking applied to all of the above and then some.

Well have you ever encountered a scientist specializing in medicine who knows ever single drug to use? Have we found every drug to cure every known disease, I didn't think so. And where did I say I'm a scienctist? My husband is a scientist. While I am a scientist of a sort, I"d be more closely related to being a doctor. More exactly, forensics specialist.

Psyche, you know your evolution theory well, bravo. May I ask what you are or have studied in college? And answer me a question is it possible to find dna in a billion year dead dinosaur bone?

No, I have not. But I am saying, how do you explain the current bacteria who are resistant to certain drugs if you don't think evolution happens?

I'm sorry Azurus, but please read your post above one more time.
(1) and (2) is very contradicting to another. You said you're not a scientist, but you consider yourself to be a scientist, this is a way to actually claim that you ARE a scientist.
(3) Here's a simple link about DNA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA , which I think it will be useless since you're a forensic specialist, and I guess forensic specialist know the answer to your question. I've worked with forensic specialist many times before.

Do you think everytime we think we come close to a cure for cancer it suddenly evolves so that we can never be healthy again? Or could it just be we haven't gotten to that point where we have the cure yet? Nothing is resistant to a cure, it just takes finding the right one. Even removing the cancer is not a cure, it is just removed. It's still there, just without a host, and the cells that made it are still in the body. Just because one species is slightly different then another does not it evolved, it is just unique as all people are unique from each other. If you believe we are evolved, why do we need laws and have souls, if we are only going to change them again later? If there is no absolute, why can't we make up our own rules, and why can't we just go out and shoot someone when we are angry or they do us wrong?

I do know the answer, I merely wish to hear psyche's point of view on this matter, as I am a bit confused that if dinosaur are long dead and such, why do we often find such dna still within the bones we uncover? If it is so impossible for them to exist within even a 1 million years, why do we find evidence explaining otherwise? And for once, be tolerant of a belief as I am tolerant of yours, do not rate it biased or unbiased, merely consider it as real science which is exactly what it is. You cannot explain something you were not there to witness, you must use the forensic evidence to explain the situation and even then it is not completely accurate. Here is for example another question, all creatures supposedly evolved from a common ancestor. Reptiles supposedly evolved into birds after these reptiles evolved from fish and amphibians. How can you know this specifically if you did not witness it and they often all share a common build? Why couldn't fish have evolved into birds and then repitles? In rock layers, these fossils are often found out of order of what evolutionists say they should be found. And no one ever commented on my question of the tree found vertically within several rock layers. This has actually been found many times, how is this possible if there are "ages" between rock layers?

For one, the difference in climate would explain the need for some animals to go one way, others to go another way, surely you have figured this out by now. And also, if they had so much time, perhaps they "evolved" from a common creature that went in different directions when the continents "split and drifted apart" then it became a variety of different animals. Such a journey could not be impossible with so much time to do so, as well as your theory including continental drift, did you forget your own belief so quickly? Why are some humans faster then others? Perhaps those quicker evolved from jackrabbits and road runners rather then apes, explaining their quick evasive manuevers. LOL

And Capo, I nearly forgot to address your question of my being a scientist. Yes, some consider forensics a science, as is any medical profession, but I never stated before then that I was a scientist which is what I referred to when I specifically said "where did I say I was a scientist?" Until then I had only stated my husband was a scientist. Must the wife of a scientist be one as well? I do consider my work more of a medical thing rather then a science, and my husband more of the scientist as he does a bit more study in his work then I do, as I have all the tools before me and he must go looking for his.