Moore's Beach Monster

[BrianC]

Moore's beach monster skull


Side view


Beaked whale skull


Another, but from the side

WOW, you're REALLY delusional.

I showed you an article containing THE ORIGINAL pictures of the Moore's Beach Monster. Those were straight out of the newspaper. And you go and find pictures of a completely different skull and post them up? LOL That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... Let me show you some better photo comparisons:

This was discovered to be a beaked whale:


See the teeth? See the straight beak? Neither of those features are on the creature in the original pictures from the original newspaper article:



As you can see, that beak is INCREDIBLY long. The snout on the Moore's Beach Monster isn't nearly that long. Also, as you can see, there are very large bones right behind the skull of this beaked whale. These bones are not present in the Moore's Beach Monster. Notice there is not harsh bend of the neck on this beaked whale, and no way of a neck shriveling down so small with that large bone structure of the beaked whale. The neck of the Moore's Beach Monster is tiny. You'd have to be blind not to be able to see the clear difference.



CLEARLY different. I'm not the one smoking something...

In fact, it's tempting to go to a completely different forum and post up these pictures side by side and put it to a vote and don't tell them why or what we're voting on to see how many people think the skulls look alike. I guarantee an unbiased vote will produce next to no one voting that these skulls are from the same animal.

Here's a picture of a beaked whale:



Note how much longer the beak is. Also, note how the apex of the beak curves down on the Moore's Beach Monster, but curves up on the beaked whale. This is what makes Dolphins look like they're always smiling. This Moore's Beach Monster would always look like he's frowning. Dolphins, by the way, are a type of small whale...

Sorry, but you're delusional. You'll fight tooth and nail to be right, even when you've lost the argument miserably...

[exlude]

Read up - I showed that actually he said exactly what I said he believed - people evolved from rocks. So, actually, all you've accomplished here is showing that you can't comprehend what someone is actually saying, because clearly, he's still saying that man evolved from rocks. Bravo genius. Why don't you just stop posting in this subject, because you don't post anything that contributes.

Yet more inane, oversimplifications in a dire and desperate attempt to lie your way to making some kind of sense. You really have no qualification let alone the ability to be speaking on this subject.

[jdgregory84]

Okay, then follow your logic back. Tell me what these "building blocks of life" are, and then explain where they came from. Keep explaining where they came form till you reach their origin. We'll see if they're rocks or not. Let's hear it.

Following the big bang theory these building blocks have been eternal. Christians specifically say the people that don't believe in god, don't believe because they can't fathom his eternal existence, the same goes for all matter in the universe on the science side. Proteins, the building block of life, in our case comes from the chemical bonding of different elements to a carbon base. The source isn't rocks. I've already told you where it's believed life started so I don't feel the need to restate that. If you couldn't read it the first time, chances are you're not going to be able to the second.

Stephen Hawkings is a physicist. Physicists are nearly as crazy in some of their theories as cryptozoologists. Physicists are notorious for coming up with theories that defy their own laws of physics. They're the ultimate "What if?" scientists.

If there truly was nothing at any point, gravity would not exist. Plain and simple.

[BrianC]

No you didn't. You twisted what I said to a point that it satisfies yourself. Anybody can read that and see it for what it is.

Okay, then follow your logic back. Tell me what these "building blocks of life" are, and then explain where they came from. Keep explaining where they came form till you reach their origin. We'll see if they're rocks or not. Let's hear it.

[BrianC]

Hey Brian who is your moderator friend?

Flashstang04

[BrianC]

You really are a hopeless individual aren't you? So man designed a self-replicating DNA and all the credit goes to god...because we haven't discovered DNA to form from nothing? The problem with that, is that on earth, there is not a place where there is nothing. Actually, the only place there is nothing is outerspace, and why is there nothing? Gravity. So you're proposing something that's impossible. Nobody said something came from nothing. Science never said that. It's funny how you completely make things up to make yourself feel good about your ignorance. If you're so anti-science. Why don't you turn your computer off? What about your air conditioner or heater? Why don't you sell your car and buy a mule?

I don't really have a problem with christianity or it's followers, but those that give all the credit to some invisible omniscient being that they've never seen or heard, and none to the people who have dedicated their lives to making your life a little easier.

Wow, you REALLY don't know your own "scientific" beliefs. lol You should do some more studying.

"In his latest book The Grand Design, Steven Hawking writes, 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.'"

Granted, Steven Hawking isn't a scientist, but he's going off of what other scientists have said. In fact, Kent Hovind shows tons of quotes in his seminar and references the articles in which they are quoted. Scientists DO say the universe came out of nothing. You need to do more research...

[Lason]

Hey Brian who is your moderator friend?

[jdgregory84]

Read up - I showed that actually he said exactly what I said he believed - people evolved from rocks. So, actually, all you've accomplished here is showing that you can't comprehend what someone is actually saying, because clearly, he's still saying that man evolved from rocks. Bravo genius. Why don't you just stop posting in this subject, because you don't post anything that contributes.

No you didn't. You twisted what I said to a point that it satisfies yourself. Anybody can read that and see it for what it is.

[jdgregory84]

I don't care about cryptozoologists. I just posted the link because the guy gave a perfectly reasonable argument to completely disprove that that skeleton did not belong to a beaked whale. Anyone with half a brain can look at a beaked whale's skull next to the skull of this thing and tell it's not a beaked whale.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2524059810029662776nAwerR

As you can see, this looks nothing like the skull you saw in the article I posted.

Using Penn and Teller to make fun of cryptozoologists doesn't change the fact that the guy is correct in his assessment. So no, that's not a beaked whale. Since when has defamating someone's character been a way to disprove their correct assessment of the facts? That was a pointless post for proving anything in regard to this thread.

WTF are you smoking? That skull EXACTLY resembles the head of the animal in that article. Are you that blind? I posted the actual skull taken from the animal. Take a look.

[BrianC]

Yet again, BrianC proves he knows about as much about evolution as he does asthma. Lying his way through yet another argument. Give it up Brian, you are so confused, ignorant, and stubborn you really need to stay away from the topic of evolution in its entirety.

Please don't respond to this with yet another 10 paragraph unguided diatribe about how smart your wife tells you you are and how much she knows about the topic...because that still doesn't qualify you to speak on the subject.

Read up - I showed that actually he said exactly what I said he believed - people evolved from rocks. So, actually, all you've accomplished here is showing that you can't comprehend what someone is actually saying, because clearly, he's still saying that man evolved from rocks. Bravo genius. Why don't you just stop posting in this subject, because you don't post anything that contributes.

[jdgregory84]

Ummm... that's not creating life.

"On a Friday in March, scientists inserted over 1 million base pairs of synthetic DNA into Mycoplasma capricolum cells before leaving for the weekend. When they returned on Monday, their cells had bloomed into colonies."

That's inserting synthetic base pairs into existing mycoplasma capricolum which they did not make themselves. And it took them years and years of research and many attempts to get this to work. And they're claiming that life just HAPPENED to order itself like this magically all on its own? I apologize, but that's laughable, because this article proves a designer, not some astronomical chance that dead RNA would order itself and get struck by lightening and come to life (which we've proved in labs cannot happen when oxygen is present in the atmosphere).

You just told me that scientists were able to design base pairs. You just said intelligent beings DESIGNED base pairs to insert into existing biological material. The key there is INTELLIGENT BEINGS and DESIGNED.

So, thank you for confirming my intelligent design theory.

Show me one research paper where scientists proved that DNA information can spring out of nowhere magically. You won't find it. Why? Because science has absolutely no theories or research on how DNA information springs out of nothingness, because it doesn't happen. And since we cannot test it and replicate it and observe it, it isn't science. Science is what we can observe, test and replicate. You can't observe, test or replicate evolution (except for micro-evolution which is just adaptation from existing information in DNA which has been inactive till needed). Therefore, evolution is a religious belief, not science.

Scientists have not created life in a laboratory yet. They've managed to prove that a designer can copy God's creation and use God's created materials to do things God did in the snap of a finger, sure... but that just proves a designer, not chance.

And even if science could get existing materials to come to life, they still can't make the materials appear out of thing air.

The joke goes: "Some scientists went to God and claimed they could create a living human being. God says, alright, show me. The scientists say, 'Well, we take this dirt and...' God says, 'Whoa! Hold on right there! Get your own dirt!'" lol

You really are a hopeless individual aren't you? So man designed a self-replicating DNA and all the credit goes to god...because we haven't discovered DNA to form from nothing? The problem with that, is that on earth, there is not a place where there is nothing. Actually, the only place there is nothing is outerspace, and why is there nothing? Gravity. So you're proposing something that's impossible. Nobody said something came from nothing. Science never said that. It's funny how you completely make things up to make yourself feel good about your ignorance. If you're so anti-science. Why don't you turn your computer off? What about your air conditioner or heater? Why don't you sell your car and buy a mule?

I don't really have a problem with christianity or it's followers, but those that give all the credit to some invisible omniscient being that they've never seen or heard, and none to the people who have dedicated their lives to making your life a little easier.

[BrianC]

You posted a link with cryptozoology in the address.

I just posted a video that shows many cryptozoologists and their awesome beliefs. Comedians are the hosts. Just because Oprah narrated a show on discovery, it doesn't mean she did the research.

I don't care about cryptozoologists. I just posted the link because the guy gave a perfectly reasonable argument to completely disprove that that skeleton did not belong to a beaked whale. Anyone with half a brain can look at a beaked whale's skull next to the skull of this thing and tell it's not a beaked whale.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2524059810029662776nAwerR

As you can see, this looks nothing like the skull you saw in the article I posted.

Using Penn and Teller to make fun of cryptozoologists doesn't change the fact that the guy is correct in his assessment. So no, that's not a beaked whale. Since when has defamating someone's character been a way to disprove their correct assessment of the facts? That was a pointless post for proving anything in regard to this thread.

[BrianC]

Haha. Actually we believe the basic building blocks of life are from simple elements and due to extreme volcanic activity (heat) this created chemical bonds between the elements forming proteins...the essential building blocks of life. Impossible, right? Except that when it can be duplicated in a lab...it seems less impossible.

Stop right there. You just said it again - "we believe the basic building blocks of life are from simple elements and due to extreme volcanic activity (heat)..." Again, you're just skipping over the whole "it rained on the rocks" thing. You add in heat and say "basic building blocks of life", but what you really mean is that it rained on the rocks and created primordial ooze and volcanic activity added more elements from the rocks that eventually created life.

You believe rocks evolved into people. You should really just admit it and move on. You can put all the fancy words you like on it, but that's really what you believe. I don't say that to be a jerk or anything. It's a statement of fact and I just want the truth to be told here - you believe we evolved from rocks.

[BrianC]

Haha. Actually we believe the basic building blocks of life are from simple elements and due to extreme volcanic activity (heat) this created chemical bonds between the elements forming proteins...the essential building blocks of life. Impossible, right? Except that when it can be duplicated in a lab...it seems less impossible.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

Look at basic human reproduction. Take a microscopic sperm, mix in an egg, heat it up for a few months and POOF, you have an ultra-complex organism. No hocus pocus there.

Ummm... that's not creating life.

"On a Friday in March, scientists inserted over 1 million base pairs of synthetic DNA into Mycoplasma capricolum cells before leaving for the weekend. When they returned on Monday, their cells had bloomed into colonies."

That's inserting synthetic base pairs into existing mycoplasma capricolum which they did not make themselves. And it took them years and years of research and many attempts to get this to work. And they're claiming that life just HAPPENED to order itself like this magically all on its own? I apologize, but that's laughable, because this article proves a designer, not some astronomical chance that dead RNA would order itself and get struck by lightening and come to life (which we've proved in labs cannot happen when oxygen is present in the atmosphere).

You just told me that scientists were able to design base pairs. You just said intelligent beings DESIGNED base pairs to insert into existing biological material. The key there is INTELLIGENT BEINGS and DESIGNED.

So, thank you for confirming my intelligent design theory.

Show me one research paper where scientists proved that DNA information can spring out of nowhere magically. You won't find it. Why? Because science has absolutely no theories or research on how DNA information springs out of nothingness, because it doesn't happen. And since we cannot test it and replicate it and observe it, it isn't science. Science is what we can observe, test and replicate. You can't observe, test or replicate evolution (except for micro-evolution which is just adaptation from existing information in DNA which has been inactive till needed). Therefore, evolution is a religious belief, not science.

Scientists have not created life in a laboratory yet. They've managed to prove that a designer can copy God's creation and use God's created materials to do things God did in the snap of a finger, sure... but that just proves a designer, not chance.

And even if science could get existing materials to come to life, they still can't make the materials appear out of thing air.

The joke goes: "Some scientists went to God and claimed they could create a living human being. God says, alright, show me. The scientists say, 'Well, we take this dirt and...' God says, 'Whoa! Hold on right there! Get your own dirt!'" lol

[The King]

Rant? LOL. New screen name, same easily baited DB!!!

Yes you are very easily baited, noob. At least you admitted that much. First BrianC and now me has you on the defensive and guess what, you're failing right on cue.