Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Helen, Sep 27, 2005.
are maybe still hanging around deep under the sea...
I recognize this.
These things commonly wash up on shore or get trapped in nets. They all they tend to be consistently similar in appearance and properties. These are masses of whale blubber (whale blubber is the last part of a whale carcass to decompose). When a whale dies, the floating blubber is not consumed by marine creatures, and it has to somewhere.
A few years ago, various ocean science groups have begun to do DNA anamyses on the remains of all of these sightings. In just about every case, the testing reveals that the mass is comprised of whale blubber protien. I think in once case, it was a whale shark carcass.
How amazing that you can identify it from all the way around the world when those who are up close and personal, professionals in the field, can't. Amazing!
Not amazing at all. There's nothing mysterious here. In the presence of abiguity, lay people will see what they want to see. Note that no experts in the news story claim it's a sea monster at all. The "sea monser" idea is read into the story by implication, not by facts.
However, the description is entirely consistent with other carcasses that have washed ashore or been captured in nets, most of which have been revealed to be whale blubber remains. It happens a few times every year in the world. China, Chile, Tasmania, have a few each. Florida's had a few as well.
But cryptozoologists (you know: Bigfoot, loch ness monster, yeti, etc) love to keep the "sea monster" rumors alive and well, becuase they legitimize their existence.
Oh, you mean sort of like evolutionists and supposed transitionals?
This isn't an evolution/creation debate.
Ooh, I'm sensing some hostility on Helen's part. . .
I second the whale blubber vote.
Is there a reason that I'm missing that this is in the Theology and Bible Study forum?
I vote blubber.
Yeah, they had one of these last year that I was hoping was a giant squid, but it was a long-dead sperm whale or some such.
Should be easy enough to identify with dna analysis if it is a known species, right?
Here's your giant squid -- first time one has been photographed in its natural habitat. Interested me the way they mentioned the animal being 'mythologized' by ancient Greeks.
Maybe not a myth at all....grin...
In other words, maybe the Bible really does know what it is talking about regarding giant creatures living contemporaneously with man....
Certainly seems so.
How can it be whale blubber when the article clearly states that there's a skull, a spine, and veteran fishermen as well as scientists have stated it is a carcass that they cannot identify?
There goes more common sense, again, bapmom. Don't you know that that doesn't work with evolutionists?
Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I'm REALLY tired of their flip and often ignorant responses.
me too, Helen.....I understand.
Why couldn't there be large sea animals still existing that we thought were extinct? Wasn't the coelacanth supposed to have been extinct like "50 million" years ago? Until they found one swimming around totally oblivious to the demise of all of its kind.
The oceans are still the great, unexplored frontier on earth.
The giant squid has been known about for quite some time. several dead and a few living ones have been caught.
Well, unless you are claiming that giant squids are capable of attacking sailing vessels, I think the mythologization view is correct.
No one here has ever disputed giant creatures living alongside man. There are hundreds of giant creatures living alongside man right now: great whales, giant sharks, african elephants, etc.
The point of contention is when people insist that scripture must be talking about creatures besides these. That's speculation at best. To insist this is to add to scripture.
Several whale blubber carcasses have had bone remnants, typically spinal remnants. They also typically have remnants of outer skin and hair as well. Several whale blubber finds were initially claimed to have "skulls" etc, but those claims were based on appearance, not on actual testing.
When did this turn into a creation/evolution debate? It seems that you began this thread with an agenda. No where in this thread has anyone, except you of course, argued the c/e point. And then you have the pharasaical fortitude to accuse others of something that is nonexistent on this thread? Your attitude is unwarranted.
If it is determined that the find in the OP is whale blubber (which would be consistent with similar finds), then it in no way refutes YE creation, nor does it bolster evolution. So kindly back off from your accusatory tone here. You know that I have been on this board and respect your greatly. I'm not telling you this lightly. I request you give my chastisement consideration.
[ September 28, 2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
I saw on the Creation Network Incan pottery with paintings of a man with a triceratops. I have also heard of missionaries who go deep into the jungles of Africa and see drawings by the natives of what looks like a brontosaurus.
I just like entering into discussions about the possibility of unknown large species still existing, or known species thought to be extinct still surviving in some places. I don't find this to be a refutation of evolution, just interesting.
Back to this particular article though, the skull was taken and weighed in at about 100kg. It was also described as looking like a very large crocodile skull. This particular article seems to have been written during and after testing and research.
There are evidences of man having lived alongside some animals which we would describe as dinosaurs today. Like I said, I like looking into it and wondering.
Why don't you keep this instance in mind next time you feel like implying you're more pious than a louse like me. This post was completely unprovoked, unnecessary, and irrelevant to anything on this thread.
IRT the actual topic on hand: long-decaying whales are often mostly fat and connective tissue, which includes bones and skin. Unfortunately the older the remains are, the less likely it is to recover useable DNA.
Hopefully these remains will be processed properly and sent to the right authorities for identification. I don't know how much of a priority they place on identifying sea animal carcasses in China, though.
The skull wasn't taken here. A part of the remains resembling a head had fallen away from the rest of the remains, and it looks like this piece is what four people took to study. They likely estimated the weight of the piece to be 100k (about 50 lbs) when they moved it. Also, note that while one persons says it looks like a croc head, another says it looks like an elephant seal head.
So far consistent with other whale blubber findings. A similar incident in Chile a few years ago (there have been several in Chile) had the people on the boat similarly claiming a skull, but the skull turned out to be a portion of dessicated sinews. I believe in that case the DNA testing identified it as blue whale blubber.
I think this is insteresting, because we never really think about what happens to great marine animals when they die. I very recent years, we've been able to capture footage of white sharks feeding on whale carcasses, but the blubber is typically not consumed and floats away. It's gotta go somewhere.