Moore's Beach Monster

[BrianC]

Ever seen a sea monster before? Looks just like a plesiosaurus. Washed up on a California beach about 70 years ago. Here's an article with pictures written by an evolutionist. I find it funny how he has ruled out the possibility that it is a plesiosaurus due to his evolutionist worldview (because that would disprove evolution according to Darwin). Instead, he simply proves that it is not a beaked whale as scientists of 1925 thought it was. He stays undecided on what it is, even though all of the evidence points toward a plesiosaurus which died probably a few months before. There are thousands of sightings per year of creatures like Loch Ness in lakes here in America up on the Canadian border. In 1901 you can find the definition of a sea monster as something which is rarely seen anymore (acknowledging that they do exist). What do you think?

http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/moore.htm

[jdgregory84]

How would it being a plesiosaurus disprove Darwin? Also, why is it's neck deflated? Honestly, it looks like a bunch of BS to me.

[BrianC]

How would it being a plesiosaurus disprove Darwin? Also, why is it's neck deflated? Honestly, it looks like a bunch of BS to me.

Wow, you're a whole lot of fail, aren't you? lol

You don't even know your own worldview. It's sad when I, a creationist, know more about the evolutionism worldview than its own believers. lol

Darwin said that if it were ever proven that man and dinosaur existed contemporaneously (for the vocabulary-challenged, that means "at the same time"), his entire theory would collapse. His theory relies on the basis that dinosaurs are much much older than man, came long before man, and that they are not as complex as man because they are older. Everything must increase in complexity, and the fossil record must contain the older, less evolved animals in the lower layers and the more advanced, more evolved animals in the upper layers. Thus, if dinosaurs are shown to have survived all this time and live with mankind, it disproves that they evolved into more complex lifeforms, and it also disproves that the fossil record is ordered by age.

We have tons of proof that dinosaurs existed with mankind. There are cave painting and carvings ALL OVER the place that show every known dinosaur. How would people know what ever dinosaur looked like if they hadn't seen them first hand? In the Bible and other writings (LOTS of non-fiction writings) dragons are spoken of for the past 4,000+ years. Dragon was the name they called dinosaurs. The word dinosaur didn't exist until the 18th century.

And as for you saying this thing looks bogus because of its deflated neck... that's just ignorance. MANY scientists back in 1925 documented the features of this creature in a lab where they examined it. They were some of the most reputable scientists of their time. They confirmed it was not a hoax. If you had read the article, you would've read that information. They claimed it was a beaked whale, but the article disproves that as a possibility. Doesn't make sense anyway with a 20 foot neck and a massive tail and little elephant-like legs or flippers. Besides, we have pictures of a plesiosaurus from the 1970s when a fishing boat off the coast of Thailand hoisted it up in their nets and took pictures of it. They didn't bring it back because it wouldn't fit in the hold and it stunk horribly since it was decaying. The Thai government put it on their stamps, because they believed the pictures were legitimate - remember, this was before they had photoshop or conventional computers. It wasn't faked, nor is this washed up plesiosaur in 1925.

[BrianC]

LOL 20 views of this topic and ONE reply from a dude who didn't even read the article and doesn't even understand his own evolution worldview.

I'd say that this is pretty good evidence that a lot of atheists don't want to admit that they could be wrong about evolution theory and dinosaurs existing millions of years ago. They're apparently speechless or they don't want to get into a losing argument. Nice...

[ELVIS]

LOL 20 views of this topic and ONE reply from a dude who didn't even read the article and doesn't even understand his own evolution worldview.

I'd say that this is pretty good evidence that a lot of atheists don't want to admit that they could be wrong about evolution theory and dinosaurs existing millions of years ago. They're apparently speechless or they don't want to get into a losing argument. Nice...

maybe its because you usually come off like a condescending know it all asshole? just a thought.

god bless.

[The King]

maybe its because you usually come off like a condescending know it all asshole? just a thought.

god bless.

I think it might be that overly verbose statements (for an internet forum such as this at least) result in a loss of potential respondents. After all, many of the peeps that visit this site do so while they are at work.

[Lason]

maybe its because you usually come off like a condescending know it all asshole? just a thought.

god bless.

DING DING DING

Not to mention its well known that there are animals living among us that have gone through time with little change from the prehistoric ancestors due to not needing to evolve to suit their enviroments. And before you post up a whitty response, understand Im by no means a expert in this matter.

[5point0pony]

Besides, we have pictures of a plesiosaurus from the 1970s when a fishing boat off the coast of Thailand hoisted it up in their nets and took pictures of it. They didn't bring it back because it wouldn't fit in the hold and it stunk horribly since it was decaying. The Thai government put it on their stamps, because they believed the pictures were legitimate - remember, this was before they had photoshop or conventional computers. It wasn't faked, nor is this washed up plesiosaur in 1925.

You're honestly arguing that dinosaurs were living as much as 40 years ago? I was about to ignore this thread, but now I'm glad I was able to have a good laugh before lunch time.

[5point0pony]

Forgot to post that it's already known to be Berardius bairdii

[YALE]

Forgot to post that it's already known to be Berardius bairdii

This. /thread.

EDIT: BrianC is a douche.

[jdgregory84]

Wow, you're a whole lot of fail, aren't you? lol

You don't even know your own worldview. It's sad when I, a creationist, know more about the evolutionism worldview than its own believers. lol

Darwin said that if it were ever proven that man and dinosaur existed contemporaneously (for the vocabulary-challenged, that means "at the same time"), his entire theory would collapse. His theory relies on the basis that dinosaurs are much much older than man, came long before man, and that they are not as complex as man because they are older. Everything must increase in complexity, and the fossil record must contain the older, less evolved animals in the lower layers and the more advanced, more evolved animals in the upper layers. Thus, if dinosaurs are shown to have survived all this time and live with mankind, it disproves that they evolved into more complex lifeforms, and it also disproves that the fossil record is ordered by age.

We have tons of proof that dinosaurs existed with mankind. There are cave painting and carvings ALL OVER the place that show every known dinosaur. How would people know what ever dinosaur looked like if they hadn't seen them first hand? In the Bible and other writings (LOTS of non-fiction writings) dragons are spoken of for the past 4,000+ years. Dragon was the name they called dinosaurs. The word dinosaur didn't exist until the 18th century.

And as for you saying this thing looks bogus because of its deflated neck... that's just ignorance. MANY scientists back in 1925 documented the features of this creature in a lab where they examined it. They were some of the most reputable scientists of their time. They confirmed it was not a hoax. If you had read the article, you would've read that information. They claimed it was a beaked whale, but the article disproves that as a possibility. Doesn't make sense anyway with a 20 foot neck and a massive tail and little elephant-like legs or flippers. Besides, we have pictures of a plesiosaurus from the 1970s when a fishing boat off the coast of Thailand hoisted it up in their nets and took pictures of it. They didn't bring it back because it wouldn't fit in the hold and it stunk horribly since it was decaying. The Thai government put it on their stamps, because they believed the pictures were legitimate - remember, this was before they had photoshop or conventional computers. It wasn't faked, nor is this washed up plesiosaur in 1925.

It's a well known fact that creatures living in the sea don't evolve as quickly or with the complexity that land creatures have. Why? Because most creatures started out in the sea, evolved to the point that they needed to, and stuck. Look at sharks. It's believed that they have hardly evolved and have existed since the time of the dinosaurs if not before. Look at crocodiles, while reptilious and require oxygen, it's also believed that they have not evolved...why? They didn't need to. Evolution is done out of necessity, not "just because." Good job with the pre-emptive insult by the way.

[jdgregory84]

This. /thread.

EDIT: BrianC is a douche.

Not a very smart douche either. The basic origin of life somehow escaped him in his infinite wisdom.

[Superwho]

LOL 20 views of this topic and ONE reply from a dude who didn't even read the article and doesn't even understand his own evolution worldview.

I'd say that this is pretty good evidence that a lot of atheists don't want to admit that they could be wrong about evolution theory and dinosaurs existing millions of years ago. They're apparently speechless or they don't want to get into a losing argument. Nice...

You are a moron. Atheists don't usually come in here for the same reason that someone who's never owned a motorcycle would never go into the motorcycle forum. The 20 views are probably five replies, and you hitting refresh 15 times to see if you suckered someone into a reply about something that was solved years ago. Good job.

[BrianC]

Forgot to post that it's already known to be Berardius bairdii

Ummm... did ya' read the article? That's the old Latin name for a beaked whale, and the guy disproves this being a beaked whale, so try again.

[BrianC]

You are a moron. Atheists don't usually come in here for the same reason that someone who's never owned a motorcycle would never go into the motorcycle forum. The 20 views are probably five replies, and you hitting refresh 15 times to see if you suckered someone into a reply about something that was solved years ago. Good job.

This clearly was not resolved years ago since the article I referenced was from December 2010 and the writer of the article disproves that this is a beaked whale which was the claim years and years ago which supposedly "settled" this matter. Try again...