james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,803
- 170
I was interested in this story as it has to do with the legend of Nessie, or the Loch Ness monster. According to Scottish folklore, the monster is a large freshwater creature that inhabits the Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands. It was sighted first around 1933. The eyewitnesses say it is large in size with a long neck and one or more humps protruding from the water. Obviously, the creationists would love to find Nessie as possible a plesiosaur (dinosaur) living to this day because it causes problems for secular scientists who say that dinosaurs were all killed by a large asteroid and other catastrophes while creationists say it was a global flood. A plesiosaur could have survived a flood.
Here is the general story from yesterday -- Loch Ness Monster 'might' be real, according to new scientific study
What bothers me is finding out through other sources that the scientist leading the exploration wanted money from tv producers to film a documentary of his team's findings. Thus, they have not released what they found in July and won't until September. What bothered me even more was this scientist doesn't believe in the monster. He should still have taken the position of trying to find it since people are most interested to see if there is a monster, and second if it is a plesiosaur. I can see why the tv producers turned him down. Also, I found Answers in Genesis say that there are no DNA of a plesiosaur. If true, then there is no way the researchers could find a plesiosaur from the DNA evidence.
What do you think? Evolutionists should be able to use what they know and predict what they found. They're always bragging about how evolutionary data predicts what species they hope to find, and these guys definitely sound like evolutionists, i.e. biased researchers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they do not have the knowledge and technology to find evidence. I don't think they'll present a fair conclusion for what they found using their evidence.