monsters

There is mucho evidence that the flood of Noah wasn't a simple rising of water due to bookoo rainfall; it was a VERY VIOLENT event, with huge tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanism, & explosions, hurricanes & tornados. Scripture hints at this violence by saying the springs of the deep were broken open.

The mixing of fresh water and salt water killed many fish and other water life, but whales, dolphins, other water mammals & reptiles, and many species of fish, especially deepwater kinds, coulda easily survived this catastrophe.

While in the navy, we had a Pacific tsunami pass under our ship. The skipper had prudently ordered the bow pointed into the direction from which the tsunami was coming, but WE DID NOT OBSERVE NOR FEEL ITS PASSING! We were over the Marianas Trench, where the ocean is about 5 miles deep. Tsunamis become violent only as they enter shallower water or encounter land. Thus, life in the midst of the oceans are unaffected by them.

There is indisputable geological evidence that several similar floods had occurred before, some appearing to have had even greater fury than that of Noah. And the fossil records are also indisputable that there were many, MANY species of plants & animals in existence that no longer live today.

Scripture says at least one pair of EVERY KIND of land creature and bird went into Noah's ark. By this, I believe that the ancient land animals now extince were already extinct when the flood occurred, and that the stories that there was no room for the dinosaurs, or that they balked at entering the ark are simply not true. Scripture says God CAUSED the animals to come to Noah.

And Scripture does NOT say that every SEA creature died. It appears that among dinosaurs, the tylosaur and ichthyosaur were very well-equipped to live at sea. The Loch Ness monster could easily be real, be an ichthyosaur, which returns every so often to the loch, ordinarily staying out to sea. Reptiles don't require as much air or food as a mammal of the same weight, so it could easily spend most of its time outta sight. Remember, God has placed an innate fear of man into almost all wild animals.

 

I'm not sure what most of that had to do with the post, since this topic wasn't about the Flood. But your post is appreciated.

As for the Loch Ness Monster, it's safe to conclude at this point that it's a myth, since there has been not a single shred of evidence for its existence. Your theory about going out to sea and back are interesting, but not plausible, but access points to the loch, while numerous, are small, making it extremely unlikely than any creature larger than a salmon would be able to traverse it regularly without being noticed.

 

No! No! It's a basking Shark! It's a Basking Shark, BRAAAAAWWWK!

lacy

 

It doesn't appear to be a basking shark carcass. However, you're obviously mocking the oft-rumored "plesiosaus" carcass caught by a Japanese fishing boat off New Zealand. Dubbed the New Zealand Monster, examination of its cartilaginous skull and vertebrae quickly established its identity as a Basking Shark. Another carcass recently washed onto a New Zealand shore, and pictures of it quickly circulates claiming it was plesiosaur. Examination likewise identified it as a basking shark.

Basking Sharks have been "identified" as plesiosaurs on no less than 12 instances.

 

Who is more wronger?

Those impetuous young earthers who are so ready to prove that some dinosaurs existed recently (or still exist) and hence jump on unverified stories? Or those bulldog evolutionists who scream "Basking Shark" every time something washes up on the shore that fails to match their current geological layer?

Lacy

 

I would say that the young earthers are more wrong because their track record so far is zero (0) living dinosaurs, while those pesky evolutionists have a sizable number of dead whales and sharks to justify supposing that this new find is also a dead whale or shark.

I think any scientist would be absolutely thrilled to find that a species of dinosaur still survives somewhere. However, assuming every new unidentified aquatic carcass is some species of dinosaur is just unreasonably optimistic.

 

Well, to start, your grammar couldn't be more worser.

There are planty of pro-evolution cryptozoologist wackos out there who'd like to "prove" bigfoot and the loch ness monster as missing evolutionary links, so your contention that all who "jump" on these stories are YEC'ers is incorrect.

There are likewise as many YEC'ers who frequently dismiss such things as hype.

The bottom line is that there has never been a plesiosaur skeleton found in fishing nets, or washed up on shore. There have, however, been numerous such skeletons which, upon initially being claimed to be plesiosaurs, have been identified as basking shark carcasses. Why this is a problem with you is beyond me. The fact that they are found to be basking sharks, or that the OP is consistent with whale blubber remains, neither refutes the YEC view, nor does it bolster the evolutionist view.

 

Well, to start, your grammar couldn't be more worser.</font>[/QUOTE]You caught that huh?

There are planty of pro-evolution cryptozoologist wackos out there who'd like to "prove" bigfoot and the loch ness monster as missing evolutionary links, so your contention that all who "jump" on these stories are YEC'ers is incorrect.</font>[/QUOTE]Your ability to read between the lines is quite astounding. I believe you should back off the "all" statement until you have proved that this is indeed my "contention". I certainly never intimated that.

BTW, you do that quite a bit.

There are likewise as many YEC'ers who frequently dismiss such things as hype.</font>[/QUOTE]I am one of them.

Here's another Basking Shark for you.


http://www.dinofish.com/

http://www.austmus.gov.au/fishes/fishfacts/fish/coela.htm

 

One Giant species we’ll not see hanging around deep under the sea anymore. The JUMBctopus. John Wayne killed the last one in the movie, “Wake Of The Red Witch”.