Page 2 of 3

Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:53 am
by Boikat
aldan wrote:Um, how does one 're-thing' something? How does one 'thing' something, for that matter??
You take out the old thing, and replace it with a new or different thing. But to "thing" something you simply add a thing to the pre-existing thingless thing.

Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:28 am
by Arcadia
I am reminded of Thing One and Thing Two from Dr Seuss.

Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:32 am
by Boikat
Ah, but that's where things get confusing. :)

Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:15 pm
by LightBrigade
Arcadia wrote:I am reminded of Thing One and Thing Two from Dr Seuss.
Boikat wrote:Ah, but that's where things get confusing.
Logical! The trochaic tetrameter of LeSieg (Giesel spelled backwards as he often used to do in parody to his own amusement) is not obvious in the quotation whereas it is obvious in the original (One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish).

Instead of things, I am much fonder of his "the men with the Siamese Beard".

------------
It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that. - G.H.Hardy

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:14 pm
by Dark Knight
LightBrigade wrote:Do you mean animals like giant calamari, giant squids or giant octopuses fishermen talk about, for example?
Well lets get this topic back on track…

First of all there is a difference between an animal that may have existed and one that did exist.. Animals that may have exist maybe should be a different topic…
Magus wrote:Norse sailors saw whales and thought that they were sea serpents.
Totally wrong Magus, a whale is not a sea serpent, but giant squids maybe...

Also I think some of you should listen and or read news reports more offend…

First giant calamari… that is a maybe creature…

giant squids: It is good to know the sailors are correct and maybe we should listen to them more often…
Sailors knew about the octupus and squid, real ocean animals that had tentacles. However, the kraken was considered to be a different species because it was much, much bigger. Sometimes it was thought to be a giant octopus, sometimes it was thought to be a giant squid.

During the early part of the scientific era, the kraken was considered just as likely to exist as sea serpents. In other words, it was laughed at. Serious scientists steered clear of the kraken question, refusing to study it even when presented with beached kraken carcasses.

Several kraken carcasses were beached within a short time of each other, and there was such an uproar that the reluctant scientists were forced to pay attention.
pay attention Magus and LB
The kraken was declared a real species. It was named the giant squid. The giant squid remains one of the most elusive large animals in the world. For many years, scientists tried to observe the giant squid in its habitat, but failed. Many people claimed to have seen giant squids, but they were mostly fishermen and sailors, the same people who are not believed when they report sea serpents.
Magus time to believe…
Every live sighting was unconfirmed and in each case the witness was not a scientist. Scientists spent millions of dollars on expeditions, but could not obtain video footage of a live squid. Everything that was known about giant squids was based on dead bodies. All expeditions into deep water in search of the natural habitat of giant squids had proved fruitless. The giant squid still had much in common with mythical creatures and true cryptids, even though the scientific community no longer had any doubt that giant squids exist.

In September of 2004, that finally changed. Japanese scientists attracted a giant squid with a baited line, and automatic cameras took more than 500 photographs of the giant squid before it ripped itself free, leaving an 18-foot length of tentacle still attached to the bait.

There is still doubt about just how big giant squids get. Both eyewitness sightings and sucker scars on sperm whales seem to indicate that there are squids much bigger than any dead body we currently have. Most scientists refuse to believe that squids that huge could exist. Is there more than one species of giant squid out there, with one of them being really, really huge? Are the giant squids that have been netted near the surface or that have washed up on beaches the smaller ones?

Skepticism towards the idea of truly huge squids has weakened recently. Now, scientists think that the Antarctic species of squid called Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni actually grows much bigger than the giant squid. They don't have proof of this yet, as the only complete specimens of Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni have been juveniles, but the size of these babies suggests that really big adults are out there. In recognition of this, Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni has recently been given the common name of "colossal squid."
Japanese scientists attracted a giant squid with a baited line, and automatic cameras took more than 500 photographs of the giant squid before it ripped itself free

Still don’t believe in sea monsters….

Since they are know to exist and are alive today, does it real fall in to this topic, maybe a knew topic to show people what is real out there….maybe a topic on animals of the deep…

gigantic octopus
The most convincing reason for believing in the gigantic octopus is the fact that some very large octopus carcasses have washed up on beaches. Unlike the recovery of giant squid carcasses, these octopus bodies have not yet converted the mainstream scientific community, and therefore they are relegated to the status of globsters. This is partly because the best and largest of them rotted badly while the scientific community scientific community , and were not in good enough shape to convince skeptical minds once science did take interest.
"Globster" is a technical term used by cryptozoologists to refer to mysterious carcasses that originate in a watery environment.
All Other quotes from http://www.newanimal.org/

Believe in gigantic octopus?

This stuff to be reposted in a different topic...

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:17 pm
by Dark Knight
Medieval explorers saw a particular breed of goat from the side, where their two horns seemed, to them, to be one, and thought that they were looking at unicorns.
And the breed of goat was only seen from the side?, and it did not move about, so was only seen from the side, and they the explorers did not get close to it, and some how they only saw it from the side…. It did not move it’s head about, so they could see… what was it a poster?

Unicorns are not really party of this topic until the bones of one are found…

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:24 pm
by LightBrigade
Dark Knight wrote:Unicorns are not really party of this topic until the bones of one are found…
I believe the unicorn or the mermaid were mentioned as further examples of mythical creatures.

Impressing replies, both the above, DK! (Returns to reading them again, paying attention *s*)

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:21 pm
by Magus
Totally wrong Magus, a whale is not a sea serpent, but giant squids maybe...

Also I think some of you should listen and or read news reports more offend…
I got my information from a history text book, as well as from a history teacher. As such, I do believe that it's both true and credible. I never said that octopi or squids weren't confused as such, I simply was addressing the very real fact that there have been a vast plethora of instances in the past were humans have mistaken commonplace or otherwise ordinary creatures as something extraordinary, even mythical.
And the breed of goat was only seen from the side?, and it did not move about, so was only seen from the side, and they the explorers did not get close to it, and some how they only saw it from the side…. It did not move it’s head about, so they could see… what was it a poster?
They were seen by sailors on islands as they sailed past (I don't know from what distance). They didn't stop to examine them, nor, I imagine, were they able to get any manner of an up-close look at them. However, this instance, as above, was documented and included in a history text book that I once used.
Believe in gigantic octopus?
Yes: I see no reason why not to, and I never made the claim against their existance before.


I was talking to a friend of mine on Saturday about this topic (as he's quite knowledgable on the subject of biology, anatomy and science in general). When I started talking about dragons he said, before I ever got to it, and I paraphrase, "Dragons were simply an instinctive combination of Snakes, Lions and Eagles."

Essentially, humanity's invention of dragons is very much in the same vein as Jung's theories of The Collective Unconcious.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:17 pm
by Dark Knight
Magus wrote:
Totally wrong Magus, a whale is not a sea serpent, but giant squids maybe...

Also I think some of you should listen and or read news reports more offend…
I got my information from a history text book, as well as from a history teacher. As such, I do believe that it's both true and credible. I never said that octopi or squids weren't confused as such, I simply was addressing the very real fact that there have been a vast plethora of instances in the past were humans have mistaken commonplace or otherwise ordinary creatures as something extraordinary, even mythical.
Yes you have a point, however notice what was said:
During the early part of the scientific era, the kraken was considered just as likely to exist as sea serpents. In other words, it was laughed at. Serious scientists steered clear of the kraken question, refusing to study it even when presented with beached kraken carcasses.
Sailors where correct and scientists where wrong... that is why I don't believe everything scientists tell me, or everything that is in text books....
Believe in gigantic octopus?
Yes: I see no reason why not to, and I never made the claim against their existance before.
Sorry, to assume you did....
I was talking to a friend of mine on Saturday about this topic (as he's quite knowledgable on the subject of biology, anatomy and science in general). When I started talking about dragons he said, before I ever got to it, and I paraphrase, "Dragons were simply an instinctive combination of Snakes, Lions and Eagles."
Was he there?

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:38 pm
by Dark Knight
Magus wrote:
people who make those shows believe in evolution
People who watch that also believe in evolution. Simply believing in Evolution doesn't denote any particular belief in religion or theology. For instance, I cannot name anybody that I know who doesn't believe in evolution, and pretty well all of them are some denomination of christian (with a few exceptions).
I never said that believing in Evolution denoted any particular belief in religion or theology....

I know that many christians believe in Evolution and you should know that many believe in creation....you seem to think it's not that many {if I assume correctly} there are loads of sites on the net... and there are like 10 creation museums/centers across the USA....

Just to let you know how big the believe is in creation...
And I personally hold that evolution not only can fit in a biblical context, but can actually be mutually explanative of it.
And I do not...

There are some problems...

Birds appeared on day five, but other land animals did not appear until day six, so how did birds evolve from land based animals?

Stars where made after the earth...day four..

Bible shows God creating man from the dust of the ground, it does not say, man come from another animal.

And Eve was made out of part of Adam.....

Just to name a few problems....

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:58 pm
by Dark Knight
LightBrigade wrote:
Evolution :
Of the here above discussion, I understand that one who believes in Creation following the Bible, The Old Testament more specifically, without any deviation or attempt at interpretation but taking every word exactly for what it strictly means, is in some way thought to be against any attempt to consider Science as a tool of investigation regarding the Historic existence or creation of man and the universe.
Many creationists use Science as a tool of investigation regarding the Historic existence or creation of man and the universe.

However what are called main stream Sciencetists do not take there work seriously and it is not report in main stream science mags...

In few words, anyone who wishes to be called a Christian, is not to accept anything different as true than what The Old Testament says about Creation. And anyone who accepts anything different, can not be a Christian.

Have I understood correctly, I must wonder.
Well no.... many are called christian and believe many different things....

Loads believe in evolution and loads in creation...

There is a church orangization that has churches across the USA and around the would and they teach creation...

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:24 pm
by LightBrigade
Magus wrote:Essentially, humanity's invention of dragons is very much in the same vein as Jung's theories of The Collective Unconscious.
If there is time to deal with it, I would appreciate a more extended explanation about how the one (invention of dragons) is related to the other (Jung’s Collective Unconscious).

It is commonly held that the memory of dragons with man is the remnant of man’s experience of contact with wild beasts of the lizard family in older times, some of which live to the day, like crocodiles. The memory has become resident in its partial capacity to remain with the genes, which fact allows us to talk about evolution with living creatures through time as they adapt to the environment better based on the experiences of their ancestors.

This partial capacity may be compared with that of the memory of the whale, where the memory of the mother is transferred whole to the offspring. It happens with whales only. This is why they are considered, so to speak, as the wisest animals we know.
DK wrote:I know that many christians believe in Evolution and you should know that many believe in creation
What do you mean by “believe in creation”? I am asking because creation must have happened at some time (otherwise we are in a non-existent world like in a dream now) while I suspect that by “creation” you probably mean “Biblical Creation”, the particular manner in which the world was created, which is what the Bible tells us. I hope you forgive my asking but it is not right only to assume what others mean.
DK wrote:There are some problems...

Birds appeared on day five, but other land animals did not appear until day six, so how did birds evolve from land based animals?

Stars where made after the earth...day four..

Bible shows God creating man from the dust of the ground, it does not say, man come from another animal.

And Eve was made out of part of Adam.....

Just to name a few problems....
Again I need your help, Dark Knight, if of course there is enough time for you to devote and if you are not tired of helping us understand these difficult matters.

I know that in the American mentality, the phrase “there are problems” is common, and it is often used to mean a lot. Unfortunately, not all members who read these posts are American. I am trying to see what you are saying here above, so I would beg you to lead me by correcting my following understanding.

There are problems in how to explain how birds appeared on the fifth day of Creation according to the Bible, and at the same time accept that birds evolved starting from animals of the land. Because these animals were created by The Almighty on the sixth day.

I did not understand why the stars are compared with earth as made after it, unless you mean that this is against the widespread opinion that stars and this planet (Earth) were created in a line of time which is not exactly the starts first, then the Earth, but according to it, the Earth was made in a process when some stars had already come to existence.

While the human being was made from dust and God’s breath and also from the body of the first male man later, some scientists held until recently that man came from the apes, a theory which has by now been proven false of course. Those who negated the Biblical way of creation of the human being are now searching other avenues of explanation, for example, they say that man appeared on the planet and study to find out how.