Do you believe in Mythical Creatures such as:

[heatherrae]

Furthermore, what is truly 15th century thinking is to ridicule people who search for empirical evidence to explain these eyewitness accounts. Are we all to stick our heads in the sand and say nothing exists that we haven't seen yet?

There are thousands upon thousands of undiscovered species in the world.

 

[layinback]

Furthermore, what is truly 15th century thinking is to ridicule people who search for empirical evidence to explain these eyewitness accounts. Are we all to stick our heads in the sand and say nothing exists that we haven't seen yet?

There are thousands upon thousands of undiscovered species in the world.

as stated earlier, no correlation lawyers and high IQ's however direct correlation with personality type that gotta be right. lol.

 

[needtogetaas]

what about pussy any one ever seen one or is that just a myth to.

 

[layinback]

what about pussy any one ever seen one or is that just a myth to.

it only becomes a "myth" after the wedding cake.

 

[foreigngirl]

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.

because I didnt care to read the whole thread.

All those creatures USED to be called mythological. Now we have 2 separate categories. The ones that have eyewitnesses are cryptozoological, the rest of them are mythological. Do you understand what me and samoth are trying to say to you?

I do have an open mind and I do agree with you on the subject that there is most likelly more creatures that we still havent found out. This planet is vast and it has quite a few under explored places.

I dont see you fit to argue the mythology (nothing personal) because I went to coledge studying those kind of things. Just the same as I cant argue the law with you - you went to school for that and obviously you know more than me.

 

[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.

No, it works right now.

I've pointed out probably 15 animals on this thread that people used to think were "mythological" that are now known species.

However, if it makes people feel intellectually superior to mock the scientists who look for such species, so be it.

However, one would think that these people are so fond of mocking would admit that they were wrong when these creatures are discovered. Personally, I would feel like a big asshole about mocking those who described the platypus, opaki, giant pandas, pygmy hippos, etc. Some people are immune to ever feeling wrong or corrected, I guess.

 

[pdaddyII]

lollol...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2d_m2OVa_g

lolol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIUKjpBo_OM&mode=related&search=

 

[heatherrae]

because I didnt care to read the whole thread.

All those creatures USED to be called mythological. Now we have 2 separate categories. The ones that have eyewitnesses are cryptozoological, the rest of them are mythological. Do you understand what me and samoth are trying to say to you?

I do have an open mind and I do agree with you on the subject that there is most likelly more creatures that we still havent found out. This planet is vast and it has quite a few under explored places.

I dont see you fit to argue the mythology (nothing personal) because I went to coledge studying those kind of things. Just the same as I cant argue the law with you - you went to school for that and obviously you know more than me.

The thread creator mentioned chupacabra, bigfoot and devils under the rubric of "mythological." Then, people came on to ridicule any such notions as being uneducated and idiotic. I merely pointed out that such animals have been discovered that explain those eyewitness accounts and that people should have an open mind.

Now, if you want to draw a distinction between animals whose creation can be derived from literature and not from eyewitness accounts, I already made that point many posts ago.

I went to "coledge" [sic] too, but I don't really think a college education is required before I'm allowed to post my opinions on a topic on this chatboard.

 

[heatherrae]

as stated earlier, no correlation lawyers and high IQ's however direct correlation with personality type that gotta be right. lol.

If you can't attack the arguments, belittle the opponent?

That's the nanny nanny foo foo argument all dressed up.

 

[foreigngirl]

The thread creator mentioned chupacabra, bigfoot and devils under the rubric of "mythological." Then, people came on to ridicule any such notions as being uneducated and idiotic. I merely pointed out that such animals have been discovered that explain those eyewitness accounts and that people should have an open mind.

Now, if you want to draw a distinction between animals whose creation can be derived from literature and not from eyewitness accounts, I already made that point many posts ago.

I went to "coledge" [sic] too, but I don't really think a college education is required before I'm allowed to post my opinions on a topic on this chatboard.

opinion is one thing. I have my opinion about what a law should mean and be, but you, as schooled on that subject, would know better and I would not even try to argue it with you. Because I realize that you went to college for that and that you know better than I do...on that subject. Just the same as me knowing more than you on myths and you should respect that fact and not try to prove me wrong and prove yourself right. Cuz I wouldnt do that to you on a subject that you went to school for.

What I just pointed out and it WAS ment for the thread starter - that it was the wrong term calling chupacabra, bigfoot etc mythological, cuz they are not.

On the rest of your posts here, I agree with you.