Azurus, there are many "Evolution Vs. Creationism" threads in the religion and Spirituality, religion and Skepticism, and Paleontology and Archeology sections. Do we really need the debate here as well?

That said:

As for diseases evolving to cope with our cures: yes, it happens all of the time. It is, in fact one of the greatest concerns of modern medicine that most diseases may evolve a resistance to our anti-biotics. People die today from penecillian-resistant infections.

As for fish evolving into birds instead of reptiles: why not? Evolution could have just as easily have taken another path. While I do believe in God, an understanding of evolutionary theory does not require the acceptance of predestination.

Evolutionary theory does not (in spite of the claims of some atheists) in any way disprove God. Evolutionary science is not secretive. Please feel free to begin your own research into biology, chemistry, and geology. Present your ideas, and the facts supporting them. Science welcomes new ideas.

Please offer more information on these petrified trees vertically held in rock layers, I am intrigued.

Look up coelolanth, it is a water-dwelling creature scientists believe to have been extinct as there was no evidence of it outside of 80 million years ago. Then this creature was suddenly discovered again alive in the pacific I believe it was. This led evolutionists to restate their theory and say perhaps some creatures survived the meteor crash and lived on without our knowledge.

Put it this way. Do you believe you have a soul? Do you believe you can feel emotion? Where is your evidence besides say-so? Can you see it? If you are religious, then what god do you believe in and if you can't see it, how can you believe he exists when you have no evidence except your own hearsay and such?

Why can't a creature be too intelligent to show itself to a population out to find it, kill it, and study it just to say they did it? Perhaps with all our intelligence and technology we are not the most intelligent species.

You're slightly off there.

The coelacanth, as it existed millions of years ago, is no more. What we've found are living relatives unknown to the fossil record that are close enough that they're in the same class (which includes mostly extinct animals anyway). The coelacanth was thought to be a 100% living fossil, when this is only half true. It was found out after one was brought back that it was not the one we knew of from the records, but again was closely related.

Even more is that if the Mokele-Mbembe was a dinosaur and found alive (which is impossible for many reasons, which I'll get to in a second), it wouldn't negate evolutionary theory in any way, as the environment could have remained stable for many millions of years, thus preventing adaption beyond a certain point. Regardless, it's rare that we find an unchanged ancient creature alive, though it does happen. It's all about the conditions they're living in. Plus the fact that they could adapt internally and still have the same outwards appearance.

Now, there's a reason why Mokele-Mbembe isn't any of the dinosaurs from the fossil records at least: A lot of them were not built to survive in those conditions, and would die out relatively quickly. Unless they did evolve, there would be no way for a lot of them (like triceratops, for example) to live there. They just didn't dwell in those environments. Furthermore, things like the long necks couldn't do many of the things you hear of them doing. If they were to stand up (and I've heard many Mokele-Mbembe stories about them standing up to eat plants), they would definitely break bones in their legs, and crash to the ground. They have four legs for a reason. Plus the front legs are longer than the hind. Also, the wading through the water sh**? Not going to happen. The way their legs would have distributed weight would have gotten them stuck in any lakes, or watery areas (such as swamps, marshes, what have you... think Louisiana and Florida) and they would have surely died from one thing or another.

Now, dinosaurs like Spinosaurus MIGHT stand a chance, but they also lived in different conditions. You don't make the jump from Egypt to Africa or whatever period, and even if there was a way, they would still likely die out because of the conditions. Of course, I believe in those times Egypt was an oasis, not a desert, but the point remains that they still had no transport and things were different.

Actually, yes. But not to the point where we can never be healthy again. Every time we do a cancer treatment, some (if only a few) cancer cells survive. These cells are then able to replicate themselves, and the cancer comes back. By removing the cells that weren't resistant to oh say radiation, we effectively changed (evolved) the population towards cells that can survive radiation treatment.


Beliefs are not scientific. Science is based on observations, evidence, and repeatedly tested hypotheses. Belief is based on faith.


Not really. We have known that some animals survived the extinction event. Crocadilians, fish, the mammals that we are descended from, ect.

It is true that the Mokele-Mbembe can't be a copy of a known dinosaur from millions of years ago, and they would not live in a swamp land. But, you just said yourself, 'Unless they did evolve,' and what animal would not evolve. In the time since the dinosaurs, small mouse like creatures evolved into elephants, whales, bats and humans, for that matter. It is completely logical to assume a reptilian creature from that era survived, and if it found a niche environment it would have evolved to fit that environment better. The point is it is not impossible for a large reptilian creature to be living in the Congo. The whole bones and joints and feet arguements are trumped by evolution.

You are right! They are called crocodiles and alligators.


For a second ignore the possibility of them existing, beceause of course it is possible, only in the sense that you can't prove they don't exist. Now imagine a herd of 25-50 foot long sauropods. (The descriptions of size are often very, very different) Imagine how big they are. Now imagine the amount of food consumption. Imagine the droppings. Imagine the damage to the forest they would do. Imagine how many footprints there would be. Do you see how easy it would be to find them? I do.

Take into consideration that there have been many expeditions and nothing has been found...other than tribes that point to a rhino as the actual culprit. Take into consideration that the believers, who have actually explored the region, take photographs of crocodile burrows and try to pass them off as dino caves because it is the only last shred they have to hang onto.

What you are left with is a daunting uphill climb for these MM's to exist. (Not m&m's, they exist and are tasty). I am not casting doubt on all dinosaurs, just the alleged Mokele-Mbembe.

Trust me, I would love these to exist because, like many, I really like dinosaurs. I still hold on to others though.

Whoa, hold on. I am glad SBB Motley explained the differences between these and the ancient one's so I don't have to. I am well aware of coelocanth. But it is a fish! It lives in the oceans. There are so many fish that would have survived and eventually changed, it isn't even funny. I see people compare coelocanth to other cryptids, but it is not a fair argument. The ocean is so vast and unexplored.

Lets look at large dinosaurs. They required so much food and such a specific ecosystem that they could not possibly have survived such a dramatic climate change brought on by a meteor. The majority of vegetation, gone. This means sauropods (vegetarian dinosaurs) would slowly starve to death. This, in turn, means that theropods (meat-eaters) would slowly starve to death as well. They would have survived a little bit longer, however. Smaller animals such as mammals that can survive temperature changes better, and adapt more quickly due to their smaller survival needs, would have had a much easier time. Not to mention the feasting of dead dinosaurs, that could no doubt have sustained their diets for a long time.


There are so many things wrong with this statement. First of all there are tons of creatures that survived exctinction. Look around you. We have sharks, fish, mammals, crocodiles. I think you get the point. One discovery of a relatively unchanged creature does not cause anyone to do a double take or restate anything. The coelocanth lives in the water. It, along with most other smaller sized creatures where not as affected by the meteor. Look at sharks. They are in fact relatives of sharks that lived with dinosaurs, but it is no coincedence that the largest ones such as Megaladon are most doubtly gone. (I hope not though). The sharks (most), for whatever reason, changed more dramatically than coelocanth. The environmental changes were just too much for the large animals to overcome.


Why do you keep bringing up religion? Religious beliefs are by definition, beliefs. They need not be discussed in this section.


Because the creatures you are describing are some of the dumbest animals to ever roam the earth. They had close to the smallest brain mass to body mass ratios ever seen.

Edit-azurus1287, I awould also still like to hear what you have to say about dragons, in the dragon thread here.

Who is to say how big they are? They might only be 10 feet long. These same villagers probably say a giraffe is 30 feet tall. Elephants would eat a comparable amount of plants and yet the environment does not seem to be totaled. How exactly would you find footprints of a animal that spends so much time in the water or in mud. And how could you tell its footprints from a rhino or elephant, especially in thick mud?


How many expeditions have there been. I mean real expeditions with funded scientists with helicopters and infrared equipment? I can only remember reading of a handful. Maybe one or two well funded expeditions and a handful more of hobbyists. My wife's sister had a teacher who was one of the three guys who went maybe two years ago. He took like a backpack of stuff with him. Hardly a well equipped expedition.


What about turtles and tortoises? They are vegetarian, slow and cold blooded. They made it through.


Are you saying there was no small dinosaurs? All dinosaurs were bigger then a crocodile and must have weighed tons?

A small warm blooded dinosaur with roughly sauropod features, 10 feet long could have survived as easily as a tortoise or a crocodile.

The one argument I will believe is that they could not exist, because placental mammals would have way out competed them during the last 50,000 years.

People, stop using coelacanth as an example of a surviving dinosaurs. I don't even need to say why, just do the resaerch and then talk (or type) not the other way around.

The people that claim to see them are the ones who say how big they are. The people that believe they are out there, have one main argument for why it is not an elephant or rhino. And that argument is that what is supposedly being seen is BIGGER than rhinos or elephants. Now you are just shrinking the size despite what reports say to make it make more sense. How do you know they spend all their time in the water? You act like it is well documented or something. If you want to go by reports that say they spend some time in the water, fine. But you better go by the reports as to the size of the animals. Which in some cases, goes up to 75 feet. You should be able to tell the footprints from a rhino or elephant because the few supposedly documented "footprints" are between 1 and 3 feet in diameter. No rhino or elephant makes that kind of "footprint."


There have been only a few well funded expeditions because there is nothing to explore. These few expeditions find nothing to justify further research. It isn't like scientist are purposely avoiding the subject. They spend months in Anartica doing research. If they felt they could learn something from MM they would be there exploring.


I clearly stated I was referring to large dinosaurs, because that is the subject. But if you insist, the diet of turtles nowhere even nearly compares to the amount of food required by large sauropods. Small dinosaurs did survive (birds). They adapted to their new environment. They required small diets and had time to adapt, and realised that if they were to survive, they better turn into birds.


Again, you are shrinking the size, contradicting reports, in order to make the Mokele-Mbembe more plausible in your mind.

The only thing that keeps me from full-fledged rhino conclusion goodness is that rhinos are not aquatic. But I highly doubt mokele-mbembe is a dinosaur. Now let us ponder this.

Ok, now consider this, have we evolved in the last 2,000 years since your scientists have determined that is the time our brand of humans has been around? And no, new technology is not evolution, it is discovery. How has our bodies, our anatomy, our thought process evolved without the link to new technology? Have we been made to run faster, become immune to more diseases, breathe is water or fly? If animals are constantly evolving, why do we not see this in fossils or our dead to prove such for over 2,000 years?

It is not the cure being ineffective, penicilin is actually a common medicine many are allergic to. I nearly died from infection a doctor tried to treat with penicilin. I do not recall predestination being in the bible. While God knows our path, it is not predestined, for he knows each path we can possibly take with each single choice. And the way you say you believe in God, I must wonder if you believe what he has done as well. For you cannot believe one and not the other. He said himself he has done this and how, and it is discounted. If you discount his own work, then you discount him. And no science does not welcome such new ideas, why do you think what my husband and many of his mentors have found has not been published anywhere but on so called "biased" websites and journals? They agree with what proves them correct. Every evolutionist I speak to either does not believe in God or does not even look at half of the teachings god has given as proof of his wonder. It even specifically says in the bible how god made the world and how long ago and how so many creatures were fossilized and frozen instantly like the woolly mammoth. It even lists those creatures God allowed to become extinct, and some he allowed to survive with Noah and his family. And it even specifically states in the beginning until God made the different languages and such at the tower of bable, the land was of one mass, so scientists are correct in this, in the theory of pangea. When the different peoples drifted into their own locations, god allowed the waters frozen at the poles to become one with the oceans and land was reduced, leaving only enough water as ice to not flood the world once more.

As I said in my last entry, Pangea is a correct theory, one of few published by those scientists everyone here considers unbiased. Waters have been frozen in the poles a long time, and was released to form separate continents apart from each other. The environment many creatures survived in long ago is still about in some areas of the world, and since there is no water canopy anymore, the greenhouse effect is not completely applicable any longer. This is the reason humans are so much smaller, shorter and such. With a water canopy, it has been proven scientifically that many diseases could easily be avoided or cured and humans woiuld live much longer and grow to much stronger and taller, etc. This would be the same for all animals living in such an environment, thus the size of dinosaurs back then. Many scientists have considered the possibility that many reptiles thought to be dinosaurs back then are still alive today, only much smaller. And it specifically states in the bible-yes the bible again, get over it-describing the behemoth, mokele mbembe as he is called now, his strength is in his loins and tail. With only the bone structure, how can you possibly determine his muscle mass and strength without having seen him as I have? No one can ever know the truth unless they see it, and you all just refuse to. You grew up with one theory and will not even consider alternate facts, even mingled in with yours to determine an actual truth.

And I notice that psyche does not answer my questions to him from earlier today.

What is faith but an observation of a realistic spiritual difference and observation of an everyday miracle? Do you believe in science? Do you believe in our earth continuing on as it has? Where's your evidence that nothing in science or what you believe can be discounted? How can you have faith in something you yourself have never tested?

Evolution yes.

The evolution proposed here would be more than just that, remember Dinosaurs wre alreday filling such niches. It would have to adapt, and outcompete the local that is already adapted to that environment, so that would mean outperformig something that has spent millions of years suiting itself to a certain environment. The liekelyhood is infintesimaly small, and considering the habitat, I'd say near likely and impossible challenge for the Suaropod. As I said earlier, a Ceretopsian with it's metacarpal spread as opposed to the Sauropod with arranged digits, wich are similar in design to say a horses hoof, is far more likely to have adapted and avoided such diseases as foot rot. The odds are stacked against our slender necked giant here.
It really is against the odds, and as the naitives are convinced a Sauropod and a Rhinoceros are the same ting, well, it stands to reason the likelyood the Mokele Mbembe is a Rhinoceros is very high. Many naitives do not even believe it is flesh and blood, but a spiritual animal as well.

PS I see someone beat me to the punch here with the most excellent example of Crocodile.

Actually, not fully aquatic, but Rhino's spend a great deal of their time semi submerged.

Link 1

Link 2

from here Link 3

For all these things you "say the Bible says" give us exact verses. What you are producing is hearsay.


Stop answering my questions with philosophical arguments. This isn't philosophy class! This is so typical of you creationists. You can't recount the logic and the science so you bring philosophy into a scientific argument.

And actually, you can test the theories of evolution. You can't test macroevolution, because it takes too long (thousands of years). But you can test microevolution (small changes in a population). There have been experiements done (my favorite one was with guppies). Depending on the predators in the pond and the color of the bottom gravel, scientist were able to drive the colors and sizes of the male guppies in different directions (ie, what was most suitable for survival and attracting a mate).

And before you argue any more with us about the Bible, you should read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I am no atheist. I do believe in God. But before you say you believe in God, you should at least know the arguments of both sides.

No, I have no formal qualifications in this field, actually, I often say on these boards I like to think of myself as an ametuer paleontologist/anthropologist with a slant in archeology and geology. They tend to run into each other often, it seems to make sense to research them all. I find publications are readily available and hope when my little girl goes to school in two years to consider degrees in the above as a presonal interest. I am hoping to participate in some digs at Riversleigh as well, but a long way to go untill that. But thank you for the compliment, I do enjoy the field immensley, I consider myself lucky to be exposed to all this again with my young son growing up and prompting my interest once again. My primary qualification deals more with mathmatics and physics.

Would you be thinking of nuclear DNA? (for those that ever wondered, Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA)

DNA can last different amount of time depending on the type and the conditions.

The major part of DNA degradation happens within autolysis, a few hours or days after the death of the organism. Page 3 of this Adobe .pdf document. This document goes on to explain storage conditions

DNA has been recovered from frozen mammoths that are millennia old. Most of the DNA found in mammoth skin samples has been damaged from exposure, while bone and dental DNA is often better preserved. Had the DNA been stored according to today's standards, it could possibly survive millennia! Different animal and human carcasses have been found, with varying degrees of intact DNA. A slow freeze, along with a slow thaw is the best way to preserve DNA, and is the method followed by laboratories.

Paper on that here

The most ancient Neanderthal to furnish a DNA sequence, from a site in Croatia, dates to over 42,000 B.P. Nuclear DNA has been taken from human remains this ancient, but no one has yet been able to reconstruct human nuclear DNA sequences this old. Hope for such sequences exists, however, since cave-bear remains some 33,000 years old have yielded a nuclear DNA sequence (Greenwood, et al, 1999). It is easier to study mtDNA from ancient bones, because many mitochondria, and therefore many copies of the mtDNA molecule, exist in a cell, compared to only a single copy of the nuclear genome.

And this article dates the frozen DNA at 20,000 years old, and says it was well preserved.

Soft tissue has been found in the thigh bone of a T Rex, pretty sure it was unearthed in Texas from memory.

How long can DNA survive?
How long is a piece of string?




Hrrmmzzz...seems to me it is yourself forgetting your own propoganda here.

Continental drift can explain this hey? Now, seeing as the flood was what 3-4 thousand years ago?

The third major and final phase of the break-up of Pangaea occurred in the early Cenozoic. North America/Greenland broke free from Eurasia, opening the Norwegian Sea about 60-55 million years ago. The Atlantic and Indian Oceans continued to expand, closing the Tethys Ocean.

Pangea was well and truly broken up by the time the Ark came to rest. It does not explain why on earth did all the marsupials make ther way down under does it? Meerkats could have come along for the ride, they are a sizeable comparison, was our beloved Oz a marsupials exclusive club was it? How did these little guys cross such vast expanses if water?

The strata layers also do not suport the deluge theory.

There is plenty of evidence for several big floods athough always locally. Another basic debate against a global big flood is the existance of primary fresh water fish. These groups of very old genera have always been unable to live in salt water. If there had been a giant world wide flood, all the fresh water in the rivers and lakes would have been blended with salt water of the ocean and all primary fresh water fish would have become extinct.

At one time even prominent workers in Biblical archaeology were willing to argue for a historical worldwide flood, like William G. Dever and Nelson Glueck but that view is no longer held.

The myth is common of a world wide deluge, and that too can be explained, core samples taken in Greenland in the late '80s indicate that ice retreated so quickly around 7700 BC that major climate changes occurred, including a ridiculously fast rise in temperature. Further samples taken in the '90s reveal that a catastrophic collapse of the ice sheets may have occurred in as little as one to three years. If this is true, then coastal areas all over the world would have been devastated. Such an event would remain burned into human culture. The scars of devastation would exist in the form of myths and legends about a great deluge that wiped out mankind.

There are also quite some advances in cancer, they take a very long tme to pass testing phases. My step-sister attends a major insitution here and feels her team has found a way to isolate and target the protein in breast cancer cells. Big stuff.



I do other things besides hang around here all day hoping for something to respond to Happy to discuss any point at my convenience.

Here is an example of evolution in modern times. The Nylon Bug It has evolved in order to digest a modern material. We can also observe evolutionary changes on a constant basis in Mitochondria.

SBB Motley is right about the Coelacanth found in the 1930's is a very different from the one in the fossil record. It shows an evolutionary path, not continuaton of an exact copy. The Wollemi Pine is more what you are describing there. Good reason that did not change in 200,000 years too. It's population got extremely small, possibly as little as two specimens.

You need to stop calling people out like this. Do you see how many post of mine you are completely ignoring? And I suspect you are ignoring them because they are actually points made about Mokele-Mbembe that you cannot refute or aren't willing to discuss. And when you do respond to mine or other's posts, it is to one part here and there where you don't have to actually discuss Mokele-Mbembe directly. Instead you want to turn everything into a philosophical discussion and continue to use the Bible as evidence. It seems the only way you can discuss this is by using the Bible.

Psyche is correct when he says you are contradicting yourself about the break-up of pangea. You say, "it happened," because it fits. But you neglect the fact of how long ago the same scientist that describe it say it actually broke up.

And that is the problem. The people you speak that publish on biased sights are working to prove what the Bible says. So they will only find things or see things that they want to see.

So, the links I gave you about the mass extinction of dinosaurs and how they aren't found above the K-T boundary, you are just ignoring those. Fine. But that doesn't change that people and all dinosaurs that have lived, did not inhabit the planet at the same time.

Well, as I stated before, and I'm happy to repeat it again, if Mokele Mbembe is an evolving dinosaur, we simply can't call it dinosaurs, it would be something else, it would be a new kind of animal.

Well then, sir, I stand corrected.

If it is actually a rhino then it is much smaller then the reports, right. So maintaining it's size is larger is pointless, because obviously if you can accept it is a rhino then it could be a rhino sized neo-sauropod. And don't large bull elephants feet get more then a foot across? Easily I think.

Psyche - I admit such a creature would very, very likely be out competed. But still, do you admit it is possible? Even if the chance is infinitesimal?

bball - You too. You surely can admit that such a creature is possible, if not likely. Otherwise why prowl the Crypo board?

i think there could be a slight possibility. due to the fact that we havent even explored all the depths of the congo.
also, the natives that have seen mokele-mbembe have NO idea what dinos are and have no knowledge of paleontology. so its interesting they picked the sauropod out of all the pictures they were shown. as opposed to a rhino or elephant.

What I am saying is that the REPORTS say it is larger than rhinos. So if you or anyone is going to believe it is out there, you don't really have a choice but to stick to believing what the reports say about it. You cannot shrink it to make it more plausible, which is contradicting reports.

I have said before it is possible, but mainly to extent that it isn't possible to prove that they don't exist. I like the cryptid board because I like cryptids and believe some of them might actually be out there. But this just happens to be one that I don't consider very likely and enjoy debating why I feel this way. If someone where to come up with things to sway me that would be great, because a living dinosaur would be very cool, but I see nothing to suggest it is in fact out there. There are plenty of crpytids that I am still on the fence about waiting to be swayed either way. And plenty I believe, and plenty (like this one) that I don't see existing at all.

I'll give infinitesimal, how about that lol No more LOL. Actually, many reports say as large as a cow, or bull. The reports, even though there are 200 of them, are extremely random. I think the largest question is the missionary accounts. One claimed a sighting just 6 months ago I think, and I they should know a Rhino from a Sauropod, ...perhaps they don't.
I think the story of Emela-ntouka fits the description of a Ceretopsian and actually fits the environment. Also, in 1999, an Iguanodon-like creature was allegedly sighted in Papua, New Guinea. Some have described it as a Hadrosaur. Even the Kongomato and Ropen stories sound good if one researches them, yet our very own Capeo (Yo Cap) went to the area personally searching and when he asked the naitives, they looked at him rather strangely. A great deal of what you read appears to have a fair sliver of zealous advertising, believe me, I have looked as close as a layman can and each story seem to arrive at a dead end. I would be over the moon if a real honest to goodness Sauropod were to show up as the Mokele, imagine viewing an Archaeopteryx or a Pteranodon. Unfortunately, the fossil record is pretty clear on the demise of these creatures. In fact, we have a better record of that era than we seem to of the following Megafauna. It is a nice thought, but the closer one looks, the less one hopes. I would love to see what will come out of the arctic circles in times to come. I imagine that places that have been permanently frozen hold the best chance for some of the best preserved fossils, maybe more. Some of the ice is over 600,000 years old!! Imagine what we may find!! The demise of the '07 Milt expedition has me thinking it actually was identified as a Rhino in the '06 Milt Prelim Info Gathering mission. It went awful quiet for no reason, makes one think that Mokele is flying well under the Radar for a Dinosaur about to leap to fame.

Actually, modern pygmies differ drastically in what they describe as Mokele-mbembe. Some identify it as a sauropod-like creature and others identify pictures of rhinoceroses. Further to this, the Boha villagers seem to believe that Mokele-mbembe is a spirit rather than an actual animal. Political problems in the region could also be part of the legend, long-running hostilities and tensions between pygmies and neighboring Bantu people have given both groups ample reason to tell stories about frightening creatures in the jungles as a way of scaring off outsiders.

If all the pygmies agreed on the one picture, sure. It would be worth considering. The descriptions are quite random though. More sheer luck combined with the fact that the pygmies seemed pleased that the expedition members expressed delight at the selection of a Sauropod.

I have previously stated before, almost like a year ago. I've been interested in Mokele Mbembe for more than 10 years. Although I cannot perform a keen research as I did with Ropen, Ahool and some European cryptids like the Lindwurms, I gather information from the net, browse for old newspaper articles, even visit the Congo Embassy. All I found is that this Mokele Mbembe creature is actually a sort of a mythical being, a giant in the forest told orally generation to generation by natives to prevent their children from playing to far from the village and into the swamp, where they may got lost. This is true, the primal "Target Audience" for this story is the children of the village, not adults like us. What we're doing right now, it'll be like hunting for real life Gollum or Trolls.

Yo Psyche, I've experienced the same with Ropen, the travelling trip to the island was pretty expensive, but when I got there, dressing up as plain as I was (because if I was dressing like a certified anthropologist or scientist, they will actually tell you something about it, but certainly not a real story, they made it up so they can extract "information money" from you, then you have to buy this, buy that etc. really!), yet I can't find no credible source about it, even the natives looked at me with puzzled looks. I'd say the Western Papua's dinosaurs were more credible, as the government officials actually asked for backup from our capital.

so you think the story and sightings could have been made up to ward off outsiders they didnt want?
or could they actually have seen something? (possibly not a rhino)

I'd go for the first one.

Capo, I must admit I never considered contacting an embassy for information on a cryptid. I wonder how the US State Department would respond to inquireries about Bigfoot, Champ, Thinderbirds, Mothman, and the Jersey devil? "Yes sir, the Thunderbirds will be perfominf at next year's air show in Nevada."

ROFLMAO
Will be cool if it does happens. Anyway, as I told you before, going to the embassy wasn't much of a help. They simply say "No, such creatures didn't exist in our country. But perhaps you want to take a look at our other tourist attractions?"
I say "No, thank you". But one gentleman from the embassy caught me not far from the building and asked me to talk about the creature I asked. I said yes and we talked in a Dunkin' Donuts. Anyway, as I told you, he claimed that he grew up with the story but later on he realized that it's a kid's tale. Just like Santa and The Grinch.

If the oceans were greatly deluted, like it was during the flood with all the water from the firmament (can anyone tell me the meaning of that word or must I explain that as well?), and then when God made the world inhabitable again for Noah and his ark the waters were frozen into the arctic. As the waters receded, it is quite obvious and logical that the fish would go back from where they came, most likely never left, just rose with the waters. Where did you think all the glaciers in the arctic came from?
And as you are soooo much older then me with no idea of what it is you even see before you, may I ask how it is you know so much detail when there is no true evidence that explains pangea's breaking apart, that would not also prove that God is infallible and is only pushed aside? Every bit of evidence you bring is proven to actually have been here before, the continents have not moved, they have been covered in water, the shallower oceans having once been land as well. And as Moses parted the seas for the hebrews to go to their own land, it is logical that God would do such if a need came for his other creations as well. And it specifies in the bible-which I will add in the scriptures a little later as I am on my way out in a few- that the depths in the oceans was much shallower so many years ago, and a few now known oceans were not even in existence. And even as the oceans still there were far too deep for some creatures to swim through, it stands to reason as science shows that the great land bridge left uncovered by water until less then a thousand years ago, was used by many creatures to come to america- as this continent is hardly mentioned in the bible as an important part of God's own earthly country.
And like I said, all the waters from the flood were frozen so that such waters remained on earth as God chose not to allow man to live as long as he had before, but of course had to give man back the land to procreate and such on. As the atmosphere changed with less protection from the sun, the glaciers began to melt steadily and do to this day, causing less and less land to remain exposed.
And being able to ingest a modern material is not proof of evolution, just examples of what has already been in the world but was molded for man's purpose. I believe everything man-made is already God-made obviously. Just as chemical and fiber made into clothes and household products was created at the time of your "big bang" -which is btw quite ridiculous, you don't get everything from nothing- it was created all at one time by God when he made the atmospheres and the earth as a whole. Just because man has used it in another way does not change the actual foundation itself. Even as sodium chloride is somewhat harmless in this form and it's two chemicals separate is deadly, hasn't it been found that salt can kill you just as well as its original compound.

Azerus, if you wish to discuss the evolution/creation debate, you are certainly welcome to do so. Prehaps it would be more appropriate to the skepticism or paleontology forums?

It is funny how you said a page back that Pangea fits because that would enable the animals to inhabit all the land after the flood, but now you say the continents haven't moved. Oh and thanks for ignoring how the Australian animals came to be where they are. And what about the Galapagos islands animals? How did they get there? Everything you said comes from you working backwards. You take your beliefs and try to find anything to make them fit. Your argument is filled with so many holes it isn't even funny.

This isn't your personal rant page. If you wanna talk about this take it to another section. If you continue post like this I will be glad to be the first to report you.

And I love how you continue to ignore my points about the actual topic at hand. You can't give me any legitimate information that would suggest dinosaurs are alive today or where living alongside humans not that long ago in vast numbers. Did you just completely ignore my links I gave you? Well, I imagine you did because you don't like what they had to say. You call people and then go on these personal rants and raves with nothing to back up anything you say. If you can't talk about MM or the evidence or non-evidence of it's existance, stop visiting this thread.

Just for you I will repost the links referring to dinosaurs and people not being found 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."

I think it is a great deal more likely considering that the terrain is not a likely terrain for a Suaropod, a Rainforest is an unlikely environment of support evolutionary change of this magnitude, no other dinosaurs more suited to the environment seem to have survived, no evidence seems to exist in the way of footprints and pathways, the way the '07 expedition was cancelled, and the fact as many naitives say Rhino as do say Dino.
Not to mention we have a member who has gone as far as contacting the embassy.
If something else - perhaps a Rhino that has evolved into a more aquatic environment? Maybe a more prominent tail or something? Unlikely, but that would be my guess at a long shot of something unknown. It seems more likely the locals inabitants would have evolved to suit their environment than a dinosaur evolving against the odd's and hiding out.

Doesn't the Sumatran (Sp?) Rhino spend time in the water? They do live in a rainforest environment. So a rainforest rhino that spends a lot of time in the water is possible.

Wikipedia says they are excellent swimmers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumatran_Rhinoceros

fir·ma·ment (fûrm-mnt)
n.
The vault or expanse of the heavens; the sky.

Kinda lost me on this bit



The fresh was extracted from the briny and frozen?

So.....I ask again, how did all the freshwater oranisms survive the deluge? 3% of the earths water is fresh. Not enough to dillute one ocean to make it habitable by freshwater organisms, let alone all of them. Oceans cover 70 percent of the earth's surface. A considerable contaminant to freshwater supplies. Certainly enough to wipe out all freshwater species.
Glaciers are formed mostly by compacted snow? How does this help freshwater fish escape rising oceans?



Am I a great deal older am I LOL. I notice you have not listed your age, but as you say you are married, I assume you have left your teen years behind. No idea what's in front of me, LOL, probably because it is pretty much mostly behind me now I guess LOL. I don't think I knew half as much as you seem to at your age, so be carfeul as those years catch up wont you You may find yourself knowing even less than I seem to when you get to my age!!

Why does everything disprove God? I just don't get how proving continental drift and the shape of Pangea disproves anything. It might alter some perceptions of the Bible, but differing opinion is all that is needed for that. If you think Pangea is a lie, why did you say in post #213



and in post # 214



It is true many land masses had shallow oceans, that had more to do with the Ice age and all that water from those glaciers not being frozen as yet If the Arctic shelf was to melt, oceans would rise as much as 65M.

Why do you suppose all the land masses fit together like a jigsaw puzzle? That gave a clue in the first place

The theory of Continental Drift was proposed in 1915 by Alfred Wegener, a German geophysicist and meteorologist. The theory stated that the continents had once been joined into one “supercontinent,” called Pangaea. About 200 million years ago, Pangaea broke apart and the continents drifted to their present positions. Wegener based his theory on the similarity of fossils and rock types on the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa. The theory was widely ridiculed at the time because Wegener had not proposed a driving force for such drift.

Until,,,, the 60's came along........

Wegener had made his claims based on data from the continents, but the oceans cover 70 percent of the earth's surface – a vast area hidden from view under kilometers of water. After Wegener published his theory, major technical and scientific developments allowed scientists to map the ocean floor and detect paleomagnetic reversals in the rocks on the ocean floor. These two sets of data provided geologists with additional evidence for the process of continental drift. Today, much of the evidence concerning plate tectonics is acquired with satellite technology. Through use of the global positioning system (GPS) and other satellite-based data collection techniques, scientists can directly measure the movement and speed of plates on the surface of the earth. Speeds range from 10 to 100 mm per year, confirming the long-held belief that plates move at a slow but constant rate. In fact, the Himalayas are still rising at a rate of about 1 cm per year. You can check it out for yourself.



Melting pretty quick now. Do you believe in the Global Warming theory? Just interested.



Yes it is LOL, how is it not? Those substances are not known to have existed prior to the invention of nylon in 1935, further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were novel, significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any other material other than the man made nylon byproducts. This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon eating bacteria, and the enzymes were collectively known as nylonase.

That's like saying Haikouichthys did not evolve into Cephalaspis because that was all going to happen anyway because they were made to do just that.

I think that's commonly known as 20/20 hindsight dear.



Can you tell me why the Big Bang hypothesis is ridiculous? Perhaps you can enlighten me? The Scientologists reckon it's a load of hooey too, although I know they are a bunch of certified crackpots and thier ideas on Xemu flying Thetas here in Boeings 23 trillion years ago outwardly express that. Prehaps you have a better idea?
You do now what elements make up a Sun, and what happens when one explodes? It is not from nothing at all, are you indeed familiar with the theories? Panspermia is a good one Lilly put me onto a little while back. I kinda favour the exploding Sun theory after further personal research, very similar in theory really. UM had a good story on it last week I think? What elements do you dispute? The entire theory, or part of it and why?

I am not sure what you mean by



Could you extrapolate please, I am not sure how this ties in with the direction of your debate, or what it is supposed to outline in it's context.

Hrrmzz.... sodium and chloride have been known as a toxins for some time now - I am pretty sure they worked it out in the early 1800's.

I honestly do not think this offers a basis of support to the theory that a Dinosaur has escaped evolution and now resides in an african river. Just for the record, you have met your first Christian who firmly believes in evolution. Cheers.

Spot on

Could be an adapted version, perhaps a whole new Rhino species, I can only speculate, it may be better suited to the environment, perhaps a larger tail to propell motion through water faster? Still a darn good bet that's the animal claiming Mokele's fame.

Azurus, I don't understand this need you have to defend the physical evidence of a Young Earth. Isn't the message of Jesus much more important then if dinosaurs are alive now or even 5,000 years ago? In Revelations (I think) it says that after the Beast is defeated that a new city will be built by God that will have foundations of Gem stones, but does it really matter if the Gem stones are real or just parable? Jesus also says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, but that is clearly not scientificly true. It is not the physical descriptions in the stories and parables that matter it is the messages in the stories and parables.

The Flood story is clearly borrowed from an earlier society, but the message is a good strong one, so the Hebrews adapted it. You don't need to fight to make the physical descriptions fit, just read and understand the messages in the Bible.

Now.... This is not the Religion forum. If you want to keep going on a Young Earth thread, you can go there and start one. The people there will be more then happy to discuss it with you.

Please post any information you may want on the Mokele-Mbembe, but please try to stay on topic.

That's why I'm not going to debate any creationist or I should say "Net-Science-Preacher". They try to fit everything in the world in one hole, but the hole wasn't big enough to put the world there. It's also because I respect other religions so I won't be putting them to shame, after a wrong deed done by someone is being rebutted.

And we have a pretty good brain mass but look at how dumb our species can be. And you obviously weren't paying attention when I wrote a few other things before, dinosaurs after the flood were not the size they had been before, jst as our species isn't because we do not live or grow as well as we would have with the seventh atmosphere, the water canopy, which filtered out more uv rays and polutants so that we may be much healthier. During the fllod, the animasl were safe and had the food they needed, and the water-dwellers were still thriving in the waters. Just as in the bible, it states that God had made other people along with Adam and Eve.