Do you believe in Mythical Creatures such as:

[heatherrae]

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.

Actually, you are wrong again. There are serious scientists all over the world who search for undiscovered and unknown apes and hominids. Bigfoot falls squarely in that category.

 

[samoth]

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.

No, they don't.

"Tales of giant squid have been common among mariners since ancient times, and may have led to the Norwegian legend of the kraken, a tentacled sea monster as large as an island capable of engulfing and sinking any ship." = myth.

"They are deep-ocean dwelling animals that can grow to a tremendous size: recent estimates put the maximum size at 13 m (43 ft) for females and 10 m (33 ft) for males from caudal fin to the tip of the two long tentacles (second only to the colossal squid at an estimated 14 m (46 ft), one of the largest living organisms)." = fact.

You're saying that anything and everything is or can be mythological. This is not true. If I exaggerate the size of a pregnant woman and get people in a bar laughing and talking of a fire-breathing godzilla-sized female human roaming the earth destroying cities, that would not make said pregnant woman a myth -- it makes the godzilla sized, fire-breathing entity a myth. You can add apples and oranges, but you cannot compare them.

 

[samoth]

Actually, you are wrong again. There are serious scientists all over the world who search for undiscovered and unknown apes and hominids. Bigfoot falls squarely in that category.

Television is leading you astray again. I hate it when that happens.

 

[heatherrae]

These animals were also considered "mythological" Natives described a mix between a giraffe and a zebra. They were ridiculed as stupid and superstitious uneducated natives.

Guess who turned out to be right?

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

Now you are trying to say that actually the half giraffe half zebra "myth" is still a myth and that this creature can't be compared - thus apples and oranges. However, you have to take into consideration that this is the animal that they were describing seeing. They hadn't caught one to examine it, do tests on it, etc. They were just describing what they were seeing.

I bet is sure as hell sounded outrageous! If I had never seen one and I had to bet which was more likely to be true, the okapi or a bigfoot, I would probably think that the bigfoot sounded less outrageous. Wouldn't you?

 

[needtogetaas]

Television is leading you astray again. I hate it when that happens.

she is right bro.

 

[heatherrae]

Television is leading you astray again. I hate it when that happens.

Please don't be condescending. It is in avoidance of the real arguments given. Address the specific creatures, that these scientists who discovered them or are looking to discover new ones are not real scientists, or some of my points made, but please don't blame it on my being educated by television, because you and I both know that I'm well educated and do have a science background, including zoology, biology, evolutionary biology, etc.

 

[needtogetaas]

No, they don't.

"Tales of giant squid have been common among mariners since ancient times, and may have led to the Norwegian legend of the kraken, a tentacled sea monster as large as an island capable of engulfing and sinking any ship." = myth.

"They are deep-ocean dwelling animals that can grow to a tremendous size: recent estimates put the maximum size at 13 m (43 ft) for females and 10 m (33 ft) for males from caudal fin to the tip of the two long tentacles (second only to the colossal squid at an estimated 14 m (46 ft), one of the largest living organisms)." = fact.

You're saying that anything and everything is or can be mythological. This is not true. If I exaggerate the size of a pregnant woman and get people in a bar laughing and talking of a fire-breathing godzilla-sized female human roaming the earth destroying cities, that would not make said pregnant woman a myth -- it makes the godzilla sized, fire-breathing entity a myth. You can add apples and oranges, but you cannot compare them.

well now samoth has a point here...

wait say ye big fire breathing prago girl.lmao

 

[heatherrae]

well now samoth has a point here...

wait say ye big fire breathing prago girl.lmao

I say that I would have been mislabeled as a myth and that I actually EXIST! Granted, he exagerated about my girth, but I am a prego chick with a big round belly, same one he was describing. I exist. I was the creature he was describing, albeit inaccurately.

I'm no myth.

I'm am, however, a legend.... okay, just kidding there.

 

[foreigngirl]

These animals were also considered "mythological" Natives described a mix between a giraffe and a zebra. They were ridiculed as stupid and superstitious uneducated natives.

Guess who turned out to be right?

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

Now you are trying to say that actually the half giraffe half zebra "myth" is still a myth and that this creature can't be compared - thus apples and oranges. However, you have to take into consideration that this is the animal that they were describing seeing. They hadn't caught one to examine it, do tests on it, etc. They were just describing what they were seeing.

I bet is sure as hell sounded outrageous! If I had never seen one and I had to bet which was more likely to be true, the okapi or a bigfoot, I would probably think that the bigfoot sounded less outrageous. Wouldn't you?

do you seriously think you know about every subject there is to discuss, HR? You dont. Everything that me and Samoth said flew right over your head. Read this deffinition about a myth and you just might understand what we are trying to tell you:

The word mythology (from the Greek μυϑολογία mythología, from μυθολογείν mythologein to relate myths, from μύθος mythos, meaning a narrative, and λόγος logos, meaning speech or argument) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.

 

[heatherrae]

do you seriously think you know about every subject there is to discuss, HR? You dont. Everything that me and Samoth said flew right over your head. Read this deffinition about a myth and you just might understand what we are trying to tell you:

I don't think one single thing you have said has flown over my head. I just don't agree wtih you, sorry.

There are some animals that have been labeled a "myth" whose very descriptions etc derived first from people who have claimed to be eyewitnesses, etc. Then, you have animals which are undoubtedly mythological because their origins can be traced back to authors etc who just made them up.

Sometimes what people describe ends up being pretty close to the truth, as in the case of the okapi and sometimes they end up being way off base, such as thinking manatees were half fish/half woman.

My only argument has been in favor of keeping an open mind and allowing scientists to discover new species and explain some of these sightings, if they can. I haven't argued that bigfoot exists, or chupacabra, etc.

And, what makes me less qualified than you or samoth to debate a topic such as this one? I'm not allowed to debate in your opinion because of what? Why is it that anytime I don't agree with you, you think I shouldn't have the right to debate? You didn't point out that anyone else on this thread doesn't deserve the right to debate.