[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: There Be Dragons



>From: bz050@freenet.carleton.ca (Ben S. Roesch)
> > >Please, please spare us this ignorant drivel about living monsters on a
> > >discussion list about REAL dinosaurs.
> > 
> > Ignorant drivel?!
> > Why is it ignorant drivel, anyways?
>
>Because:
>A. there is insufficient evidence that there is really anything there
>   to study at all.
You call hundreds of eyewitness accounts insuffiecient evidence?!

>B. the fossil record for the Cenozoic is far better than for prior
>   eras, and no trace of *any* non-avian dinosaurs are known from
>   *any* post-Paleocene sediments (and even there they are almost
>   certainly reworked from prior sediments).
So what!?If dinosaurs have survived, obviuosly not many survived, and
therefore what are the chances that they would be found as fossils? There
are supposed to be lots of species of dinosaurs that haven't been
discovered yet, and they existed in much greater numbers and larger areas
than hyptohetical living dinosaurs. The fossil record is a joke. It hasn't
revealed half the secrets it still holds.

>C. if such a large animal still existed, it would be fairly easy
>   to loate and verify.
I agree that one living in Loch Ness should have been found by now, but
it's not like people are out there every day searching for the beast. The
Loch Ness is very deep and quite long... plenty of room for a "living
dinosaur", though I must say that's not what I think it is. I think it's
probably a giant amphibian.

And a dinosaur living in the Congo in Central Africa - do you have any
idea _how_ hard it is to find it? Imagine yourself in a giant vast rain
forest looking for a aquatic dinosaur, one that is about the size of an
elephant. You have a month... now go get it... I don't think so. You knwo
how hard it is for scientists to locate forest elephants? And these are
creatures that we know exist, and that reside in much larger numbers than
a tribe of living dinosaurs would. 

> > Cryptozoology is full of speculation, and so is dinosaurology.
>
>Cryptozoology is nothing but speculation combined with unverified,
>and unreliable, second-hand reports.
I want you to go to a university library that has the Journal of
Cryptozology. Read through them. Then tell me if it's juts speculation.
Like any science, it has competent researchers, scientific groundings and
reliable and verified reports. Cryptozoology is not a joke...anyone who
thinks this is just ignorant...

>Paleontology is largely a proper science making use of verifiable,
>and easily observable data (the fossils and geology).  It is only
>at the very cutting edge, so to speak, that it involves much speculation.
>[And Dr. Bakker almost certainly goes overboard in that department].
Largely? Cryptozology is a largely scinetific field too. Scientific
research is conducted on hair samples, tissue samples, feces and all. In
fact I know a cryptozologist (a trained scientist) who is doing DNA tests
on supposed living giant sloth feces that he collected in the Amazon. 

Plain and simple: Cryptozoology is a scientific field, as long as it is
treated compentently and  seriously. If it's not, than I don't pay
attention to it, or read it over and reply to it in rebuttal.

Ciao!

Ben...