Do you believe in Mythical Creatures such as:

[heatherrae]

I'm sure that argument worked great back in the 15th century. Fortunetly, we've come a long way since then. There is not bigfoot or lockness monster, sorry. But feel free to keep looking in the african rainforests and in the ocean, Captain Ahab.

I'm not saying that bigfoot or the lockness exist. However, that would be convenient in order for someone to lay immediate skepticism or ridicule if I did. I'm merely pointing out that many of the animals previously LABELED as "mythological" turned out to be real species of animals.

Mocking people for seeking empirical evidence in support of a hypothesis seems quite UNSCIENTIFIC and 15th century, if you ask me.

 

[foreigngirl]

You are splitting semantic hairs, now. What is labeled as a "myth" now may be the future discovered species. What was the subject of past ridicule as a "myth" is now our facts. These things that you label as "myth" may turn out to be undiscovered species. These animals are LABELED as myth until such time that someone proves that they exist. I'm not saying that they all will be discovered. I'm just saying that ridiculing those looking for proof seems somewhat to fly in the face of science rather than furthering science.

omg, thats why they are labeled as CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL creatures. They did NOT come from any myth that exist in any culture.


I dont know why I am anal about stuff like this, but I just am.

can you people start making a difference between mythology and crypto-zoology?


Mythological creatures are dragons, elfs, trolls, fairys, vampires, werewolfs, griffins, meduza, unicorns, Pegasus - the flying horse etc



Crypto-zoological creatures are Yeti, bigfoot, chupacabra, Nessie etc....oh and the creatures that now we know they exist were crypto-zoological, never mythological ones , like the giant squid, the gorilla and so on

 

[foreigngirl]

"Cryptozoology is the search for animals hypothesized to exist, but for which conclusive proof is missing. The field also includes the search for known animals believed to be extinct."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology

This looks like TCR.

TCR?

btw, yeah, I am totally with you

 

[heatherrae]

omg, thats why they are labeled as CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL creatures. They did NOT come from any myth that exist in any culture.


I dont know why I am anal about stuff like this, but I just am.

You are wrong, my dear. The giant squid of today was the "mythological" kraken of yester year. Study your cryptozoology more.

 

[samoth]

I'm not saying that bigfoot or the lockness exist. However, that would be convenient in order for someone to lay immediate skepticism or ridicule if I did. I'm merely pointing out that many of the animals previously LABELED as "mythological" turned out to be real species of animals.

Mocking people for seeking empirical evidence in support of a hypothesis seems quite UNSCIENTIFIC and 15th century, if you ask me.

As already iterated, the definition of mythology requires belief. That ain't science. There is no scientific evidence of bigfoot or the lochness monster, only media popularity. You're mixing up science and science fiction. Even if the group of actors from the shot Ghosthunters call themselves scientists, they are not. Sorry.

If something was labled as myth and turned out to be fact, it was never mythical. That worked centuries ago. It does not work not. There is a difference. The world is much smaller than 500 years ago, and anyone thinking we're going to discover unicorns in the african forests or magical energy from rotting corpses needs to step away from the television screen.

People that argue religion, magic, and this kind of fictional stuff will always draw a stalemate in the argument with science, because they rely on belief, not scientific principles. Such arguments belong in theology and philosophy, not science.

 

[samoth]

You are wrong, my dear. The giant squid of today was the "mythological" kraken of yester year. Study your cryptozoology more.

Quit confusing fictional writings of yesteryear.

We will never, never find this:

The giant squid that does exist is not that entity. Sorry. No ship-eating squids exist.

 

[heatherrae]

In addition, even pygmy humans were considered mythological creatures at one time. They exist. Period. End of story.

Honestly, I can't see how a scientist would have a problem with a team of scientists searching lock ness with sonar etc to try to explain all the sightings, etc. maybe they will discover some new species of huge lake sturgeon or whatever. What is the problem? Why all the mocking?

So many scientists were persecuted and mocked for their beliefs before their beliefs became widely accepted. Such stifling attitudes hinder the progress of science.

 

[foreigngirl]

You are wrong, my dear. The giant squid of today was the "mythological" kraken of yester year. Study your cryptozoology more.

What I tried to say, when arabian started this thread he was talking about sea monsters, big foot and creatures like that that are clearly cryptozoological. They are not at the same level as the real mythological creatures as the ones that I pointed at.

Here is a list of those creatures and you are not gonna find the mythical figures as mermaids, unicorns, dragons, phoenix, griphins etc. Almost every creature that was discussed here is in this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cryptids

 

[heatherrae]

Quit confusing fictional writings of yesteryear.

We will never, never find this:

The giant squid that does exist is not that entity. Sorry. No ship-eating squids exist.

Actually, there is empirical evidence that qiant squids much, much larger than those which have surfaced so far do in fact exist. So, these sailors saw a huge freaking squid and freaked out not knowing what it was. Turns out they were giant squid. Real creatures. Case closed.

The fact is that a new species which does not turn out to be EXACTLY like the described creature turns up and explains the sightings. So your "mythological" creature turns out to be real.

 

[samoth]

In addition, even pygmy humans were considered mythological creatures at one time. They exist. Period. End of story.

Honestly, I can't see how a scientist would have a problem with a team of scientists searching lock ness with sonar etc to try to explain all the sightings, etc. maybe they will discover some new species of huge lake sturgeon or whatever. What is the problem? Why all the mocking?

So many scientists were persecuted and mocked for their beliefs before their beliefs became widely accepted. Such stifling attitudes hinder the progress of science.

Because that's not science.

Pygmies are short people, like Covergirl. If people chose to make myths of ship-eating pygmies, that's their choice. But the myth and the fact do not coincide. They are seperate entities.

Your scientific attitude would fit centuries past. Not today. Science doesn't care about desparate semantical interpretations of the english language. Nor does science care about bigfoot or mythology -- that's for the television producers and historians.