Sea Serpents

[Brother Parrish]

Well, this is my first post here...
a bunch of KJV Baptists talking about Sea Serpents?how could I resist, LOL...
Have you folks ever heard of the Cadborosaurus,
I have never seen one, and it may be a myth who knows?but some people claim it's real.
Here are some old photos and info:
http://www.bcscc.ca/cadborosaurus.htm
http://www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/caddy.php

Also I created a full color illustration of this crypto about a year ago, here is my rendition of the Caddy...

[Salyan]

Sailors also beleived in "mermaids" which is claimed to have derived from sighting "sea cows" or manatees. Do you believe in mermaids and unicorns?

Hey, the Bible mentions unicorns... not sure what it's referring to (probably not white horses), but it's sure not a hippo or rhino, like some modern version claim!

[Psalms18_28]

Hey, the Bible mentions unicorns... not sure what it's referring to (probably not white horses), but it's sure not a hippo or rhino, like some modern version claim!

If rhino exists, dinosaurs exist, acid beetle (forgot the name of it) and fireflies exists, then why not unicorns and dragons?

I have seen weirder creatures under the sea than unicorns and dragons. And boy, they are creepy!

[Alimantado]

If rhino exists' date=' dinosaurs exist, acid beetle (forgot the name of it) and fireflies exists, then why not unicorns and dragons?[/quote']

Then why not flying pigs too? Seriously, where do we draw the line? It's true that there's some weird stuff out there, and it's possible that all of the things people claim they see are real, but it's also true that people make a lot of stuff up. The most famous Nessie photo, the one from the 30s that resulted in a slew of other sightings/photos, was a fake that the photographer confessed to when he was he very old. So yeah, they could exist. So could anything.

[heartstrings]

The Bible says "unicorns"; so I believe there were unicorns. It don't say what they looked like.
Man came up with the mythical white horse....

[heartstrings]

Absolutely.
I believe that the Bible is scientifically accurate and there were unicorns and dragons. But we don't know what they were or what they looked like. No sense letting our imagination run wild and beign foolish. Making stuff up is not Biblical and it ain't science either. Why not say "I just don't know" and until you really do know, just stick with truth?

[Alimantado]

Good idea.

[Brother Parrish]

Yeah, I mean whoever heard of a mammal with one big horn coming out of its head?

[heartstrings]

That's not a horn.
It's a tooth.

[Brother Parrish]

"One suggestion is that the unicorn is based on an extinct animal sometimes called the "Giant Unicorn" but known to scientists as Elasmotherium, a huge Eurasian rhinoceros native to the steppes, south of the range of the woolly rhinoceros of Ice Age Europe. Elasmotherium looked little like a horse, but it had a large single horn in its forehead. It seems to have become extinct about the same time as the rest of the glacial age megafauna..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

"However, according to the Nordisk familjebok (the Nordisk Familybook) and science writer Willy Ley the animal may have survived long enough to be remembered in the legends of the Evenk people of Russia as a huge black bull with a single horn in the forehead.
There is also testimony by the medieval traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who is usually considered a reliable source, which suggests that Elasmotherium may have survived into historical times:
"There is nearby a wide steppe, and there dwells, it is told, an animal smaller than a camel, but taller than a bull. Its head is the head of a ram, and its tail is a bull?s tail. Its body is that of a mule and its hooves are like those of a bull. In the middle of its head it has a horn, thick and rouisnd, and as the horn goes higher, it narrows (to an end), until it is like a spearhead. Some of these horns grow to three or five ells, depending on the size of the animal. It thrives on the leaves of penof trees, which are excellent greenery. Whenever it sees a rider, it approaches and if the rider has a fast horse, the horse tries to escape by running fast, and if the beast overtakes them, it picks the rider out of the saddle with its horn, and tosses him in the air, and meets him with the point of the horn, and continues doing so until the rider dies. But it will not harm or hurt the horse in any way or manner.
"The locals seek it in the steppe and in the forest until they can kill it. It is done so: they climb the tall trees between which the animal passes. It requires several bowmen with poisoned arrows; and when the beast is in between them, they shoot and wound it unto its death. And indeed I have seen three big bowls shaped like Yemen seashells, that the king has, and he told me that they are made out of that animal?s horn."
Even if Elasmotherium is not the creature described by Ahmad ibn Fadlan, ordinary rhinoceroses may have some relation to the unicorn..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium

[heartstrings]

Sounds much more likely.
Makes much more sense than a white horse with a spiral horn in it's forehead. If we accept that image, we might as well beleive there was a Pegasus too.

[Brother Parrish]

That's not a horn.
It's a tooth.

Ahhh, but a unique design, unlike any other on Earth:


"The mammal's tusk has baffled scientists because it defies known principles and properties of teeth. It is slightly longer than half the animal's length and typically protrudes through the left side of a male's upper jaw plate and lip.

(For comparison, consider a six-foot-tall [two-meter-tall] person with a three-foot-tall [meter-long] incisor jutting straight up into the air.)

Furthermore, unlike the curved teeth of elephants and warthogs, the narwhal tooth is nature's only straight tusk. It consistently spirals on a left-handed, single axis. Scientists speculate the spiral may minimize tusk fractures, and prior research suggests it may aid the tusk's relatively straight growth during development.

Adding to the tusk's uniqueness is its odd gender distribution. The teeth are common in males but not females. Female tusks, when they do appear, tend to be shorter and cleaner with more tightly wound spiral patterns.

Inside Out

The latest findings, researchers say, only add to the narwhal's singularity.

Generally, mammalian teeth are softer on the inside and tougher on the outside to resist wear and abrasion.

But when Naomi Eidelman, an infrared microscopy expert at the Paffenbarger Research Center at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland, used a special technique to map cross-sections of a tusk cell by cell, she reported something dramatically different.

While the tusk contains some materials similar to other mammalian teeth?dentin, pulp, and cementum?it is constructed "inside out," said Frederick Eichmiller, who directs the research center.

A highly mineralized layer surrounds the pulp on the inside, like a steel rod. The outside of the tooth, which resembles enamel at the tip, is actually less mineral and more protein.

Cementum is usually the layer that bonds the tooth to the bone in other mammalian teeth. But in this case, the cementum is "just sticking out into the ocean," Eichmiller said. "This tooth was different from what we've seen before," he said. "Ever."

Scientists theorize the reverse architecture endows the tusk with flexibility, possibly helping it to absorb shock and resist extreme water pressures during deep dives.

The tusk does not appear able to lay down another form of dentin to heal cracks, and perhaps it does not need to, Nweeia says. The researcher adds that the tusk's unusual qualities could have profound implications for modern dentistry and biomaterials science.

"Everything about this tusk is built not to break," he said. "To find a material that is flexible and strong?that is kind of the grail for restorative materials. This guy's got it."

Sensing the Environment

The new findings also provide significant clues to tusk function, a puzzle that has generated conflicting theories, from displaying aggression to breaking ice.

Using scanning electron microscopy, researchers uncovered evidence of dentinal tubules, basic structures that exist in almost all teeth, including humans. The tubules are remnants of a cell process in which millions of tiny nerve connections tunnel their way from the central nerve of a tooth to its outer surface.

Tubules in human mouths are sensitive to cold and are normally covered by enamel. We experience discomfort and pain only when they are inadvertently exposed, through cavities, for example.

Narwhal tubules, however, penetrate the outermost layer of the tooth, directly exposing sensory connections to the Arctic environment. The result is that the tusk?despite its inanimate appearance?actually serves as a kind of membrane with an extremely sensitive surface, researchers say.

Tubules are known to allow for specific sensory functions in mammals, such as gauging air temperature and barometric pressure. But it remains to be seen what they are used for by the narwhal, whose tubules contain a solution similar to blood plasma, Nweeia says.

Sensing salinity is one possible answer; Nweeia and his colleagues have developed customized equipment to test this theory that measures narwhal brain activity when saline solution is introduced to the tusk.

Narwhal migration is tied to ice formation, which affects saline concentrations, and narwhals may be able to detect subtle changes in the environment from miles away, Nweeia said.

Human teeth have evolved so that "we go out of our way not to have cold things against a tubule," he said. "Why does an Arctic whale, who is in frigid waters and incredible pressures all of his life, go out of his way to have open tubules?"

"If you are going to develop something like this, from an evolutionary standpoint it has to be about survival. There are a lot better ways to get a female than growing one of these," he added.

Solving the Puzzle

Future field expeditions are expected to focus on anatomical studies and sensory research.

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, are conducting CT and MRI scans on two narwhal heads, one male and one female. And a dissection team, led by James Mead of the Smithsonian Institution, will convene in January.

Still unanswered, researchers say, are fundamental questions about how and why the tusk evolved.

"There's a difference, but why is there a difference?" Eichmiller said. "That's the part that is the most intriguing."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... oth_2.html

Here's a possibility---it didn't EVOLVE at all!

[qwerty guy]

Brother Parrish is my new best friend..... Thanks for the postings I'm loving this info. Haven't seen it before.

[JAHinton]

One limitation is science is that it can not prove a universal negative. i.e. There is no such thing as a giant sea serpent.
In order to make that statement you would have to be able to observe the entire sea at the same instant. An obvious impossibility.

Science can be defined as the total accumulation of man's knowledge gained through observation of the physical universe using on or more of the five sences. Scientist can accurately say "I have seen none therefore I have no scientific evidence of there existence." I can like wise ask him "Have you ever seen a monkey become a man?" Therefore biological evolution is unscientific. They don't like to use their own arguments when they disaprove their pet theories.

Do they exist? I can not say positively that they do or they do not based upon my own observation. But based on my own observation I can not say that George Washington was the first president of the united states. Some trustworthy people say they have seen them. Can I call them a liar or ignorant. But yet that is what those who deny their existence must do. I am confident they have seen something but what.

[qwerty guy]

JAHinton is now also my new best friend. That's a root argument, that many people need to understand. The evidence for George Washington is even weaker then sea serpents, given that we have people today who say they have seen them, and no one today says they have seen george Washington.

I do point out some times, how people will trust someone in NASA about what they think some planet 10,000,000 light years away is like, but won't trust someone they know about something they saw in the ocean.