MAYBE MONSTERS MAYBE NOT
Posted 06 July 2003 - 09:07 PM
Posted 06 July 2003 - 09:14 PM
Posted 06 July 2003 - 11:47 PM
OK Am I the only one that has had the thought that alot of the 'monsters' that people try to discredit as not real could just be creatures that scientists have yet to 'discover' ? I just read an article today on MSN Today (Messenger 6.0) About something that was found just floating along in the ocean and it's organic but they have yet to figure out what it is. Plus from THERE I linked to another article about a new type of giant squid they found. They've only recently started seeing it in the past few years and have yet to catch a live one, but it's been spotted by scientist alot since they started going deeper into the oceans. They are trying to figure out if it's newly evolved or they just haven't seen it before, and if they just haven't seen it, how many OTHER things have they 'just not seen'
Us skeptics totally admit that might be the case. Remember the giant squid of mythology, remember the mermaids? Science eventually discovered the origin of the legends precisely because they kept looking for explanations of creatures which - logically - didn't exist. And when that evidence came along, science rethought its paradigms.
Have you ever seen footage of a mouth-breeding frog "giving birth"? I thought that was just about the weirdest thing I'd ever seen until the other night I watched a programme on weird breeding habits of animals which showed a frog whose young emerge fully formed from under the skin on the mother's back.
We have explored space more than we have explored the oceans on this planet. It is not only possible, it is probable that we will ultimately discover that some of the monsters of legend for whose existence we have yet to discover evidence will, in time, offer up to science evidence of their existence - as did the manatee, the dugong, and the kraken. Science - like skepticism - is all about looking for the evidence and evaluating it whether or not it advances a particular hypothesis or theory.
BTW, science knew about the giant squid long ago (mostly because of the bite marks they leave on blue whales, but also because the occasional corpse washes up) - it's observing the live ones in their own habitat which is proving a challenge.
Posted 07 July 2003 - 02:46 AM
We have evidence of what it does to people because of the Chernobyl disaster, even in successive births for many years after the event.
Posted 07 July 2003 - 05:31 AM
You know I didn't even think to mention about the possibilites of things not even created by nature, but by chemicals that are dumped in the oceans (probably some land animals that have been affected 2) And yes the giant squid is a perfect example of science proving the exsistence of one of the very things it claims are nonexsistent! The species that I read about tho is so new, they haven't even named it yet, they are waiting to study a live one. BTW I don't really consider myself a skeptic (I believe their are alot of things BEYOND OUR UNDERSTANDING and alot of it does scare me but I can't deny what I feel EXAMPLES: Being alone in a house, but feeling a presence -just out of the blue- when your not even THINKING of such things, or walking into a house/room/certain area, and all your intuition is telling you to RUN A-W-A-Y like NOW! Or just knowing things without understanding how or why you know...) Anyway like I said, I can't deny the exsitence of anything, who am I to tell you that what you saw isn't REALLY what you THINK you saw :-X........ maybe one day science will prove YOU right 2!!!
Posted 07 July 2003 - 06:30 AM
I am certain that there are many undiscovered creatures that remain to be seen and have yet to be discovered by man. This theory is derived from the fact that we haven't been able to go quite everywhere as of yet. There still remains much to be discovered.
Antoher reminder or thing to consider is that we have come leaps and bounds in technology since the turn of the century and this has allowed us to study that which escaped us prior.
As technology grows, so does our knowlege of what were considered to be monsters at one time that now we understand were not at all .
Posted 07 July 2003 - 10:08 AM
Is it that people are trying to discredit monsters or that they feel that the evidence presented for the monsters’ existence doesn’t really justify the claims that the monsters exist?
I just read an article today on MSN Today (Messenger 6.0) About something that was found just floating along in the ocean and it's organic but they have yet to figure out what it is. Plus from THERE I linked to another article about a new type of giant squid they found. They've only recently started seeing it in the past few years and have yet to catch a live one, but it's been spotted by scientist alot since they started going deeper into the oceans. They are trying to figure out if it's newly evolved or they just haven't seen it before, and if they just haven't seen it, how many OTHER things have they 'just not seen'
How many other sea creatures have we yet to discover? Loadsandloadsandloads.;D We’ve barely begun to explore the deeps.
Reprise Have you ever seen footage of a mouth-breeding frog "giving birth"?
I watched a programme on weird breeding habits of animals which showed a frog whose young emerge fully formed from under the skin on the mother's back
Euuuuuuuuuuuugh! (I don’t ….. feel so …. hungry …. anymore …. !)
It is not only possible, it is probable that we will ultimately discover that some of the monsters of legend for whose existence we have yet to discover evidence will, in time, offer up to science evidence of their existence - as did the manatee, the dugong, and the kraken.
Jeez, I can’t believe you missed the coelacanth off that list.
Rockhauler2k1 As technology grows, so does our knowlege of what were considered to be monsters at one time that now we understand were not at all .
Indeed it does …… but be cautious, folks – remember that although our knowledge of nature is limited, we cannot use the fact that much is unknown as a rationale for our beliefs. After all, it’s possible that sometime in the future, it will be shown that cows can fly. Do you think that that is a good enough reason to go out tomorrow morning and fit parachutes to the local dairy herds?
Posted 07 July 2003 - 02:11 PM
I would prefer flying hamburgers falling from the sky. Not an unprocessed hamburger (cow). *snicker*
In what I read it is freely admitted by "science" that little is known about the abyss. Problem is the pressure. If you net something from the oceans bottom and bring it to the surface, internal pressure either blows it up or turns it kinda inside out. Hard for them to study that. Recent deep probes and videos do indeed show a sea of "monsters" if you will. We tend to lable anything strange that makes us uncomfortable with that tag. Worse "monster" I have ever seen is a snarling, hungry Chihuahua leaping for my hotdog! *LOL* ;D
Posted 07 July 2003 - 02:37 PM
2nd of alll :o a FROG that has BABIES out of it's BACK???!! 3rd ANY ANIMAL that has BABIES (WHOLE) out of it's BACK??!! : My goodness......
Those Chihuahuas are vicious huh? lol I better keep and eye out for them!! Oh & thanx Rockhauler for the WELCOME! :-*
Posted 07 July 2003 - 04:36 PM
When did scientists ever claim that giant squids were nonexistant?
And as for nuclear waste...humans who get exposed to severe enough radiation get cancer and die. Why should animals be any different?
I hate to sound so argumentative in my first post, but all my non-argumentative points have already been made by other posters, and I hate to be redudant...
Posted 07 July 2003 - 09:23 PM
Gald to have you aboard
Posted 08 July 2003 - 12:43 AM
1st -You might not say 'scientists' exactly but through history sailors claims of -what we now know are- giant squids WERE descredited as hallucinations from being at sea to long (or being drunk lol) As for the nuclear waste it's not the ones that are dying that we're referring to, just the ones that are 'changed' the same way humans that were exposed or more likely the BABIES of ppl who were exposed are 'changed'
THANX FOR NOT BEING REDUNDANT SWEETIE!! :-*
WELCOME & HOPE TO SEE MORE FROM YOU!
Posted 08 July 2003 - 04:12 PM
Hi and welcome to you too Angel!
In humans and animals mutations can be formed from chemical exposure and/or radiation. It's a matter of degree of exposure. Ionizing radiation breaks the chain of DNA and when it recombines something may be left out, or the sequence changed. Especially to the fetus (human or animal). Since they are at an early stage of development, any DNA damage could have a cascading effect. Of course too much of anything (even water) will kill the organism- especially radiation. Either a high dosage, or continious low dosage. If you believe in evolution, radiation to force mutation is a key element in nature.
Posted 08 July 2003 - 08:29 PM
The gastric brooding frog of Australia swallows her fertilized eggs. The tadpoles remain in her stomach for up to 8 weeks, until finally hopping out of her mouth as little frogs. During the brooding period, gastric secretions cease--otherwise she would digest her own offspring. Among Darwin frogs, it is the male who swallows and stores the developing tadpoles--in his vocal sac.
The Surinam toad of South America, carries her young embedded in the skin of her back, where they develop until hatching fully formed.
from Exploratorium: Frogs
edited because I'm spelling-challenged today
Posted 08 July 2003 - 08:37 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users