Moore's Beach Monster

[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.

[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...

[jdgregory84]

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

Haha. You know, you're right about everything. That is undoubtedly a Plesiosaur and that discovery completely disproves everything science thinks about the universe and it's origin. Damn, I thought I could outsmart you by posting a random pic of a beaked whale skull.

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/07/moores_beach_monster_skull.php

[BrianC]

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.

No, you did not state where they came from. You said that they were created with heat and rain, but you did not say what their origin is, and you will not answer my question and tell me where they came from now, because you know it will lead back to rocks. lol

Most every textbook says that 3 million years ago it began raining on the rocks which created oceans of primordial ooze. (Where is this ocean of primordial ooze now? I just realized that that's a question I've never asked and that it could have an entertaining answer, possibly. It seems that this ocean of ooze should be around today in our current oceans.) All I'm doing is sharing with you what evolutionists teach kids in textbooks.

As for you, I'm going to start a whole new thread JUST for you to answer the one question - "Where do the building blocks of life originate?" Can't wait to hear your answer. I bet it's a rockin' good answer!

[BrianC]

Haha. You know, you're right about everything. That is undoubtedly a Plesiosaur and that discovery completely disproves everything science thinks about the universe and it's origin. Damn, I thought I could outsmart you by posting a random pic of a beaked whale skull.

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzool...ster_skull.php

Ummm... Has anyone else noticed that in your pictures of the Moore's Beach Monster's skull, the huge hump on the head is completely absent? gee... how'd the skull lose its large hump? Amazing...

[jdgregory84]

No, you did not state where they came from. You said that they were created with heat and rain, but you did not say what their origin is, and you will not answer my question and tell me where they came from now, because you know it will lead back to rocks. lol

Most every textbook says that 3 million years ago it began raining on the rocks which created oceans of primordial ooze. (Where is this ocean of primordial ooze now? I just realized that that's a question I've never asked and that it could have an entertaining answer, possibly. It seems that this ocean of ooze should be around today in our current oceans.) All I'm doing is sharing with you what evolutionists teach kids in textbooks.

As for you, I'm going to start a whole new thread JUST for you to answer the one question - "Where do the building blocks of life originate?" Can't wait to hear your answer. I bet it's a rockin' good answer!

You must be super limber with all the stretching you do.

[BrianC]

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.

I love how you think you can just speak badly about someone and that somehow vindicates your lack of evidence to disprove what is being discussed and somehow discredits what I've said. Nice... way to debate. You'd get slaughtered in real debates.

[BrianC]

You must be super limber with all the stretching you do.

I like how you believe I'm "stretching" things when you posted up pictures of a skull which show a longer beak with different characteristics and an absent hump. Nice. Yeah, I'm the one who stretches things... sure...

[exlude]

I love how you think you can just speak badly about someone and that somehow vindicates your lack of evidence to disprove what is being discussed and somehow discredits what I've said. Nice... way to debate. You'd get slaughtered in real debates.

I'm not worried about debating a lacky. I've tried it before on DFWS and crushed you, just for you to get confused, misquote and misinterpret me, and dive headlong into a circular argument that no one wants to follow you into. There's no where else for me to go with you, because you can't, so I won't.

It's much easier for me to simply tell you how wrong you are than explain to you, again, why you are wrong. It's not worth the effort for someone who is so blinded, ignorant, and cannot grasp the fundamentals of science let alone biology, genetics, and evolution. If you're stuck at the elementary school level of understanding, and struggling with that, why would I take it to a collegiate level?

[jdgregory84]

I like how you believe I'm "stretching" things when you posted up pictures of a skull which show a longer beak with different characteristics and an absent hump. Nice. Yeah, I'm the one who stretches things... sure...

I post the actual skull from the decaying animal that you originally post, and wait...that's not the skull because it's missing the hump, most likely a hump of blubber surrounding the skull. I post the abiogenesis theory of the origin of life, you say something about ooze, which in all of my biology classes I've never heard of. You keep saying that I don't know anything about my own beliefs on this subject, yet you've been pretty obscure towards your own beliefs on the original post. I assume you think it's a sea creature believed to have lived millions of years ago, but extinct today. I'm gonna face the obvious fact that you're obviously set in your ways. You pick and choose which posts to reply to. I'm leaving it at this. Go tell your followers how you schooled me. I'll let our existing posts speak for themselves and let the lurkers who you, for some reason think are scared to argue with you, make their own decision. Have a good one.

[BrianC]

I didn't look into that website before I posted it's article about the Moore's Beach Monster. I didn't know it was a creationists website, nor do I care. It doesn't disprove the things he points out. He still makes completely solid points which disprove it is a beaked whale. I showed pictures which completely disprove that's a beaked whale too and I'm a Creationist.

For the record, I didn't ever say it was a plesiosaurus. Could it be some type of plesiosaurus? I suppose. I looks to have a head which is closer to a brontosaurus, but some plesiosaurs are shown to have heads matching this one. I believe it is some type of sea creature which we have never seen before, and I believe it is very possible it could be a type of plesiosaur or something similar. The lack of teeth it certainly doesn't have in common with some of the plesiosaurus skulls found. We find carnivores with all types of tooth configurations, and herbivores with many different teeth configurations too. This thing doesn't have teeth, so maybe it just swallows fish whole or maybe it lives off plankton. I have no idea. Who knows what it is? I'm just taking the word for the original scientists who examined it when they say it had a very long neck and across its body it has elephant-like legs. If it didn't have flippers (they said legs, not flippers) then this could have been some land animal that drowned in the water and washed out to sea in a storm and washed up on shore. If so, this makes sense because they didn't find a blow hole on this creature. Who knows? I can't tell you what it is since I've never looked at the whole creature myself, and even if I could, I couldn't tell you exactly what it is. The point is that it is dinosaur-like and is clearly not millions of years old.

And if you want to see Darwin's statement about how dinosaurs existing with man would disprove his theory, just read his book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (that's the full title - yes, Darwin used evolution as the foundation for his racism, as did Marx, Stalin and Hitler... the United States believed like Hitler, that we should exterminate the lesser races to preserve the more "advanced" races, and we sterilized people right around the 1920s so they could not reproduce. Hitler said he was impressed with our legislation we'd put through congress to sterilize people. The Jews were considered the least evolved race, so he wanted to exterminate them from the gene pool. Did you know Hitler sent a huge ship of Jews to America and it traveled the entire East coast asking if anyone here in America would take the Jews? We rejected them. Finally, Sweden was the only country who would take those Jews so they would not be killed. That's right, we could have saved a lot of Jews but we refused back then because of evolution and eugenics beliefs. After Hilter's extreme behavior, everyone distanced themselves from eugenics and so you don't hear about that in history books anymore. Michael Critchton gives a short history lesson on it in the back of his book State of Fear. It's informative. Evolution is the cause of a lot of screwed up stuff, because with evolution comes absolutely no morals, only survival of the fittest).

[BrianC]

I'm not worried about debating a lacky. I've tried it before on DFWS and crushed you, just for you to get confused, misquote and misinterpret me, and dive headlong into a circular argument that no one wants to follow you into. There's no where else for me to go with you, because you can't, so I won't.

It's much easier for me to simply tell you how wrong you are than explain to you, again, why you are wrong. It's not worth the effort for someone who is so blinded, ignorant, and cannot grasp the fundamentals of science let alone biology, genetics, and evolution. If you're stuck at the elementary school level of understanding, and struggling with that, why would I take it to a collegiate level?

Again, nothing of significance to add to the conversation. I believe I'll ignore you from here on out.

[BrianC]

I post the actual skull from the decaying animal that you originally post, and wait...that's not the skull because it's missing the hump, most likely a hump of blubber surrounding the skull. I post the abiogenesis theory of the origin of life, you say something about ooze, which in all of my biology classes I've never heard of. You keep saying that I don't know anything about my own beliefs on this subject, yet you've been pretty obscure towards your own beliefs on the original post. I assume you think it's a sea creature believed to have lived millions of years ago, but extinct today. I'm gonna face the obvious fact that you're obviously set in your ways. You pick and choose which posts to reply to. I'm leaving it at this. Go tell your followers how you schooled me. I'll let our existing posts speak for themselves and let the lurkers who you, for some reason think are scared to argue with you, make their own decision. Have a good one.

You've never heard of primordial ooze?? Then you never listened in your science classes growing up... that's sad...

And I responded to all of the posts - you just didn't notice what I was responding to.

I don't have any "followers" nor do I want any. I don't go brag to anyone. And yes, I'll let our conversation speak for itself here. The skulls do not look a like. The characteristics are very different. But hey, you believe what you want. And I did explain what I believed, you just didn't read it. I stay pretty objective with my belief on what this is. I give my speculation, but I admit that I haven't a clue what it is. I certainly can see that it's not a beaked whale, though.

[exlude]

I give my speculation, but I admit that I haven't a clue what it is.

If only we could have started and stopped there.

[BrianC]

I post the actual skull from the decaying animal that you originally post, and wait...that's not the skull because it's missing the hump, most likely a hump of blubber surrounding the skull. I post the abiogenesis theory of the origin of life, you say something about ooze, which in all of my biology classes I've never heard of. You keep saying that I don't know anything about my own beliefs on this subject, yet you've been pretty obscure towards your own beliefs on the original post. I assume you think it's a sea creature believed to have lived millions of years ago, but extinct today. I'm gonna face the obvious fact that you're obviously set in your ways. You pick and choose which posts to reply to. I'm leaving it at this. Go tell your followers how you schooled me. I'll let our existing posts speak for themselves and let the lurkers who you, for some reason think are scared to argue with you, make their own decision. Have a good one.

Oh, by the way, I am not anti-science. Shall we see which of us is anti-science?

You believe:
Everything came from a tiny ball of dirt which exploded and just happened to create a perfect balance, and then it rained on the earth for billions of years and rocks evolved into man (but you won't admit that part). No only is that anti-scientific because it is illogical and impossible, but it also has no scientific basis! You cannot observe, test or replicate that in a lab - thus, it's a belief and defies the laws of science.

I believe:
An eternal God exists and created everything in the universe and life itself and that is why things are in such a perfect balance and that is where DNA information comes from. So I believe there was an intelligent designer who has always existed (because that is a logical demand) and that is why we see complex intelligent design and balance. That makes perfect logical sence. The only part of that which defies science is the fact that the Creator can create matter, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Yet, logically, if matter exists, it had to have been created at some point by something or someone. Thus, it is not anti-scientific nor illogical. However, this cannot be observed, tested or replicated in a lab, and therefore, it is a religion. It adheres more to science and logic than your theory does, and yet my beliefs are somehow anti-science? Sorry, but that makes no sense. I'm not the one kissing a frog and turning it into a prince over "millions of years". Somehow "millions of years" makes it all believable. lol That's a laugh... Sorry, but Evolution is a joke and you fell for it because you have been duped and can't think critically for yourself. You listen to what many scientists claim (and by the way, half the scientists in the US believe there is a God according to recent polls) that we evolved against all odds and logic and you buy into it like a little puppet, never bothering to think critically about how absurd their claims are, and never realizing that it's a religion not science. Good job!

And you do so because you don't want to be held to a standard of morals. That's all it is. You don't want there to be a God because you want anyone telling you that you're morally wrong. Well, who decides morals anyway? Do you? Do I? If I say morally I should kill you and you disagree because your morals are wrong, then who's right? I mean, that's what evolution would spawn - a complete lack of morals and so we make up our own to best suit our survival. Me shooting you seems like the strongest survives so by my own figuring, I need to kill you because you pose a possible threat. That's evolution morality at its core. And yet you adhere to a certain set of morals, many of which come from the Bible! What a hypocrit! lol