Evidence for God from Science

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=115

Okay, I would just like to state that this was taken from drdino's (Kent Hovinds) website, but he or YEC is not the question, or a question of whether dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible or not in perspective to any YEC arguements.

My questions are simple, what is a 50 foot long dinosaur doing taking a sun tan on the beach.

Is this even a dinosaur to begin with?

Are those pictures fake or real? Is the reference which those pictures were taken out of reliable references (University of California at Santa Cruz)

Is there any scientific/plausible explanation why a dinosaur (if it is even a dinosaur) washed up on the beach?

Is there other cases such as these of dinosaurs that scientists claim to be extinct still exist (apart from reptiles such as lizards, snakes, crocs or aligators that are seen today which may or may not relate to dinosaurs)

What would you say it is? Opinions?,

If this has already been discussed on another thread, please point me to it so I don't waste anyones time, thanks!

godslanguage wrote:http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=115

Okay, I would just like to state that this was taken from drdino's (Kent Hovinds) website, but he or YEC is not the question, or a question of whether dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible or not in perspective to any YEC arguements.

My questions are simple, what is a 50 foot long dinosaur doing taking a sun tan on the beach.

Is this even a dinosaur to begin with?

Are those pictures fake or real? Is the reference which those pictures were taken out of reliable references (University of California at Santa Cruz)

Is there any scientific/plausible explanation why a dinosaur (if it is even a dinosaur) washed up on the beach?

Is there other cases such as these of dinosaurs that scientists claim to be extinct still exist (apart from reptiles such as lizards, snakes, crocs or aligators that are seen today which may or may not relate to dinosaurs)

What would you say it is? Opinions?,

If this has already been discussed on another thread, please point me to it so I don't waste anyones time, thanks!

Good question. Should make an interest thread.

First, it appears Hovind has taken an existing article. The original I found was here.

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

These are a few other articles about it with some speculation as to what it might be.

http://www.americanmonsters.com/monster ... article=48

http://www.strangemag.com/seaserpgallery.html

http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/a ... whale.html

This is a direct rebuttal to Hovind's use of the article to postulate a plesiosaur by an Old Earth Site that dismisses it out of hand as a beaked whale and provides comparative pictures with the photograph taken in 1925. Beaked Whales are rare but they do wash up on occassion usually in the BC are but can go as far south as California.

http://www.answersincreation.org/rebutt ... iosaur.htm

A quick review of all the material above, doesn't give me a conclusive sense of what it is or was. There is more than 80 years since, a few photos and some conflicting reports.

The most significant element missing, is any mention of a blow hole which you would expect if it were a whale. The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, so I think there needs to be care in jumping too quickly to a conclusion.

Probably explanations would include:

1. A beak nose whale, possibly partially decomposed which could account for no blow hole and the possible appearance of a plesiosaur.

2. A basking whale or shark, similar as per the above.

3. A plesiosaur released from a glacier which subsequently washed on shore. Seems highly unlikely, but possible.

4. A recently alive plesiosaur washed up on the beach.

What seems to set this apart from other types of these discoveries is that it is far enough away in time, with some poor records taken and kept so that there is a broader base of speculation available. Not only does Hovind present this with an eye to confirmation of his necessary YEC position that dinosaurs coexisted with man and mammals.

The other group using this event are your lock-ness monster, Bigfoot, Yeti proponents who tend to see these events as evidence of some long survivors rather than how Hovind spins it.

I'm content to say there's some controversey, but that no strong conclusions can be drawn from the evidence itself due to apparent shoddy work at the time of discovery and follow-up.

I suspect its a beak-nosed whale where the blow-hole was part of the decomposition, but my surmise in that regard would be no better than Hovind and his associate.

Hovind has more to gain by this and very little other hard data to go on to support his YEC contention, and so it makes sense that he will push harder to try and make conclusions in this area to create an aura of plausibility in his followers minds. Might he be right? If it is a plesiasaur, then the question becomes whether it was alive or long dead and released from a glacier of some form of preservation. Again, even less to go on in that regard.

My opinion based on a quick review.

Just an fyi to everyone here... I live just a mile from this beach in Santa Cruz. In fact I think of it as my own back yard. I have never heard of this story before, maybe I could investigate more. Weird..

G -

Thanks for the reply Canukster. The problem I see with these articles is that they don't lead us to any conclusion, like you said yourself.

However, it is kind of hard in this case to believe in what anyone asserts. The witnesses distinguished this creature as differant above others. There are probably tons of dead basking sharks/whales float up on the beach. Why not make a story about all of them them? Was this the only whale/shark resembling a plesiousaur, you'd think that overtime, they're would be--many or at least a fraction of them in a similar order. When scientists themselves claim that this was most likely a plesiousaur based on observation and pictures, I would like to assume it to be the real case. You'd also think that the would do more than just take a quick glimpse but to investigate as to what exactly it is before making a conclusion.
Why aren't other dead basking sharks the star of the show, thats what I'm getting at here.
Why should the YEC'rs, OEC's, evolutionists or whomever, why should they tell the witnesses what they saw, even though theyre probably not alive any longer.

godslanguage,

To be honest to you... This looks more like a half eaten decomposed orca or killer whale. There are many of these orcas in the Monterey Bay here. Orca's are really part of the dolphin family and their heads resemble them greatly. When orca's die, there are many sharks here that love to eat them up. Looks to me like all that was left of this one was only it's head and it's skin.

This is funny, the building where I work is only a stones through away from natural bridges... The water here is freezing too.. Only about 55 degrees.

If this were something different than this, I'm sure I would have heard of it before.

G -

godslanguage wrote:Thanks for the reply Canukster. The problem I see with these articles is that they don't lead us to any conclusion, like you said yourself.

However, it is kind of hard in this case to believe in what anyone asserts. The witnesses distinguished this creature as differant above others. There are probably tons of dead basking sharks/whales float up on the beach. Why not make a story about all of them them?

This is an interesting question. There are several avenues we can take.
1st we can take a survey to see exactly how many whales do indeed wash ashore.

2nd we can watch these carcases and document how they decompose.

3rd we can gather whales ourselves and try to duplicate the imges in the photographs.

godslanguage wrote:Was this the only whale/shark resembling a plesiousaur, you'd think that overtime, they're would be--many or at least a fraction of them in a similar order.

Quite a hasty assumption don't you think? I suppose you would think over time that people would find more peices of toast with the image of the blessed Virgin Mary burnt on it.

godslanguage wrote:When scientists themselves claim that this was most likely a plesiousaur based on observation and pictures, I would like to assume it to be the real case.

Do you think the majority of scientists feel this way or is it more likely that you wish to believe this and use the few who do to support your choice?

godslanguage wrote:You'd also think that the would do more than just take a quick glimpse but to investigate as to what exactly it is before making a conclusion.

What happened to the bones? Wouldn't the carcas eventually rot away leaving a skull to analyze?

godslanguage wrote:Why aren't other dead basking sharks the star of the show, thats what I'm getting at here.
Why should the YEC'rs, OEC's, evolutionists or whomever, why should they tell the witnesses what they saw, even though theyre probably not alive any longer.

The question should be why not more plesiosaurs, these seem to be dominant carnivores especially given their size, what do you suppose they eat? What would be their lifespan, where is the population base? Don't they breathe air?

It's pretty funny to see what they do with the whales here... Or at least the dead ones. They simply load them up with dynamite and blow them up to
smithereens.

I guess the other goofy thing I see here is that the viewer claims the sea lions were attacking the monster. What I can tell you about the sea lions here is that they are terrified of anything bigger than they are. They only really eat fish... There are many many surfers here in Santa Cruz that have NEVER been attacked by these sea lions... What we are terrified about here are the great white sharks. Other sharks such as the mako shark are no threat.. It's the great whites sharks that are the nasty one's. If the writer would have said a great white shark or sharks there would be more credibilty to the story.. Sorry dude.. The writer must have be a valley guy not a local...

G -

By the way.. Santa Cruz means Holy Cross in spanish... We are a bit more holy than the others out there...

While you guys get hot out there we freeze over here... The cold water comes from Alaska and freezes our city. In fact at night during the summer we have to use furnaces to keep warm here since it get's below 60 degrees. Wanna trade?

G -

"godslanguage wrote:
When scientists themselves claim that this was most likely a plesiousaur based on observation and pictures, I would like to assume it to be the real case.
Do you think the majority of scientists feel this way or is it more likely that you wish to believe this and use the few who do to support your choice?"

My mistake, I meant the one or two scientists who were the witnesses. I didn't make this stuff up, it's in the articles. Scientists does sound like a group and there was nothing but two scientists speculation.

"godslanguage wrote:
You'd also think that the would do more than just take a quick glimpse but to investigate as to what exactly it is before making a conclusion.
What happened to the bones? Wouldn't the carcas eventually rot away leaving a skull to analyze?"

Thats interesting, but doesn't the head of the plesisaur have bones in it, because they look intact on even those poor quality pictures. But the rest of the bones are gone, it may have been eaten up by sharks or something.

Could the bones been covered up, because the question you put forth sort of leaning towards that conclusion. The skull was probably left, right? They could have already examined for all I know. I am just making great assumptions here, thats all I can do. But its hard for me to think that this kind of find was not put to the test, even in 1925.

"godslanguage wrote:
Why aren't other dead basking sharks the star of the show, thats what I'm getting at here.
Why should the YEC'rs, OEC's, evolutionists or whomever, why should they tell the witnesses what they saw, even though theyre probably not alive any longer.
The question should be why not more plesiosaurs, these seem to be dominant carnivores especially given their size, what do you suppose they eat? What would be their lifespan, where is the population base? Don't they breathe air?"

Aren't Plesiasaurs underwater creatures (technically they breathe air, but don't understand the question, is it to infer that they exist or not). The links even stated that the plesiasaur is not a dinosaur, but a sub-order of dinosaur which isn't directly related to a dinosaur because it doesn't have a common ancestor. But whether its a sub-dino or dino, its assumed to be extinct until 1925 (if real plesiosaure ofcourse)
The ocean is pritty big, humans don't live underwater and sure enough have not explored every depth of the sea. If there are plesiosaurs, but not many, what are the odds of anyone seeing or observing them...low I bet, low enough for it to be categorized as some sort of myth such as the lockness monster(another assumption)
To the rest of your questions, no clue, since we can't really observe them, we can't really think or makeup assumptions of they're lifespan or population base. Perhaps the population is very low and lifespan is very high, what can I say, they might not even exist in the first place.

godslanguage wrote: The ocean is pritty big, humans don't live underwater and sure enough have not explored every depth of the sea. If there are plesiosaurs, but not many, what are the odds of anyone seeing or observing them...low I bet, low enough for it to be categorized as some sort of myth such as the lockness monster(another assumption)
To the rest of your questions, no clue, since we can't really observe them, we can't really think or makeup assumptions of they're lifespan or population base. Perhaps the population is very low and lifespan is very high, what can I say, they might not even exist in the first place.

So basically you can't see them, they are basically mythical, the skull dissapeared, and yet you still believe that the best explanation is that the photograph is that of a plesiosaur?

Read your link again, there's an important quote.
"After several noted scientists scratched their heads for months over the strange duck-billed creature, officials from the California Academy of Sciences carefully inspected the creature's skull, and officially announced to the waiting world that the mysterious monster of Moore's Beach was a North Pacific type of beaked whale. This creature was described as being so rare that no name, except its Latin one, Berardius bairdi, had ever been bestowed upon it."

Now take a look at this article here.
Thanks Sandy!
=)

The original skull is on display at the California Academy of Sciences.

gone

Jbuza wrote:http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch10.html
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/dinosaurs.shtml

This is a good example of the generation of a hypothesis, here, that man and dinosaurs coexisted. This is the first step of the scientific process.
The next step would be to look for physical evidence which supports the hypothesis. Once such evidence is found and confirmed, the theory of the coexistence of man and dinosaurs will be well on the way to acceptance.

gone

Jbuza wrote:While this isn't directly related to the animal in question, it really relates to the broader question of recent dinos.

in the recent past, dinosaurs and man have co-existed. There is, in fact, good evidence to suggest that they still co-exist, and this is directly contrary to the evolutionary model which teaches that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man came along

//www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch10.html


EDIT

And another

History [] attests to the coexistence of man and dinosaurs

//www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/dinosaurs.shtml

So you must beleive that all lifeforms at one time or another coexisted with man, not just dinosaurs.

So the seas had to have been populated by trilobites, plesiosaurs, pliosaurs, ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, dolphins, whales, tiger sharks, megalodon, seals, bony fish, sturgeon, Dunkleosteus, placoderms, ostracoderms, sea turtles, amonites, Nautiloid cephalopods, squidetc all simultaneously.

Why don't we find megalodon teeth with trilobite fossils? They are both relatively common yet we never find them together in the same layer.

We see Dunkleosteus with trilobites, but never have we found modern shark fossils with them. Nor have we found whale fossils with plesiosaurs. Why not? Is it coincidence? We can do the same thing for any ecological zone, besides pelagic life, we can do benthic, jungle, dessert, polar, lake life, etc.