You might be thinking, "What on earth is this doing on Christian Conservatives?"  All good things to those who wait
First of all, I'm not talking about the Hollywood type horror monsters, I'm referring to the legendary and mythical creatures like Bigfoot, Kraken, the Loch Ness monster etc.  Do they really exist?

I've done some research again and these type of creatures are called "cryptids", because it's animals that are reported to be living, but who have no confirmed existence.  What do you think?  

(Don't worry, I'll bring it back to how Christians should understand this within a biblical worldview)

I really do not know what to feel about these monsters. I really think that bigfoot does not exist. I have never hear of Kraken, but would like to hear a little more about this creature. I do think that the Loch Ness is a possible monster, as the BIBLE refers to what IT calls the Leviathan. This, as I understand it to be in Job, seems to be some sort of aquatic dragon. I do think that Loch Ness...even without this inderect Biblical reference, just seems like more of a realistic monster than the other ones...or at least Bigfoot. He seems more like an evolutionist's concotion to prove that we evolved from apes! Cryptids...huh? They are reported to be living but have no confirmed existence. Well, it just depends. I will not be fearing a shadow anytime soon. But as far as never really seeing one...if there are only one or two of each of these monsters (assuming that they do not reproduce...) No wonder people cannot find them. They could be looking in all the wrong spots. It almost seems like what I say about GOD sometimes, they like to say that people report HIM to be alive, but say that HE has no confirmed existence because they cannot find HIM. It is because they look in all the wrong places! If you do not look for GOD through HIS SON's sacrifice, how can they find HIM. If you are expecting to find HIM within the confines of this universe, you are looking in the wrong place! He created this universe and is above it...and above every monster that it might hide!

sure monsters are real even in a monster cloud
of the angels
but they mythics

Ah. My wife actually does the paranormal investigating, she has quite an open mind for this sort of stuff - as long as science can back up evidence. 


Me however, I say nay. I do not believe in ghosts, Loc Ness monsters or bigfoots.  I see them as imaginary creatures, but like most things, they might have been based off a little truth - an abnormal, rare animal size perhaps-  but monsters? I doubt it.

I do not. And I really don't understand why the Loch Ness Monster is such a popular thing to believe in in the Christian community.

One thing I hear all the time is how the fact that so many people have reported seeing it supports the likeliness that it is real. I think it is the opposite because of all the people who have reported it, not a SINGLE person has been able to get a picture or video that wasn't just some black shadow shape. You (not you SoL@R) are going to tell me that in a day and age where almost everyone has high quality cameras on their phones, people bring even better quality cameras with them, people go to Loch Ness with their cameras out specifically trying to snap a shot of it, there have been cameras positioned around running non stop on many occasions, motion sensor flood lights installed with those cameras to shine a bunch of light with enough movement just to make it to where the video footage isn't just another dark shadow footage, and there is STILL not any picture or video proof of this/these creature/s? Really? With all of those factors in place, the ONLY people who end up spotting it are the ones who don't have their cameras to get a shot or video of it? Pretty convenient, no? And assuming these things are not immortal, there has not been one piece of physical evidence or skeleton found after all these years?

I hear the logic that it must be true as so many people still 'spot' it. I say that the more people who claim to see it without evidence to back it, the more it is DIScredited.

FaithFighter : evolutionists to NOT say that we evolved from apes. That is a HUGE misconception. And no credited evolutionist scientists has backed the Bigfoot myth.

SoL@R :

Well, it's odd, I believe in a few different things.


For starters,  I do believe in the Loch Ness monster.

Not because of accounts only from Loch Ness, but from around the world, including Africa and even Florida. But also because of one account of some white missionaries and scientists, (I think there were some scientists with them. . . . .or something. . . ) who once showed a few African natives several pictures of dinosaurs from a book.

The natives of this area denied seeing every kind of dinosaur except the Plesiosauria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiosauria which is beleived to be the same kind of monster as the Loch Ness monster.

They pointed it out in the book the minute the white men showed it to them. They said, "Oh yeah, we killed that one, And we ate it too."


They also had reports of Giant snakes, and told stories about how their grandparents fought them, only a few generations ago.


The Ica Stones makes are some of my favorite evidence for Dinosaurs and Creation. We already have pictures of a few kinds of dinosaurs, like Triceratops, and what we called. "long necks" from the popular children's series- Little Foot.

(I Loved that show growing up) ^^'

Even the Bablylonians had stone depictions of these *ahem* "Long Necks" (See, I've already made it a proper noun) Along with lions. These depcitions spanned across many differenet walls. It's easy to see how powerful Nebuchanezzer thought he was with these decorations. 

A lion was a symbol of great strength, but so was a dinosaur.

Lots of cultures have legends of humans battling dinosaurs, only they called them dragons. Now, I do understand that tales are twisted over time. And the depiction of dragons in books at times are nothing like dinosaurs look like, (or we suppose so), but, at the same time, there are stories in existence where "Dragons" And the way they were described did very much fit with our current understanding of how these monsters looked, just by looking at their bones.

Even more credible people, Like Alexander the Great claimed that his soldiers were scared by Dragons when he when into Asia to conquer more lands. Notice he was disappointed with his men. Not bragging about how he sent the Dragons crying home. 

I think that they really did exist at the same time as human begins, and that we even battled them! Feirce! (the Inca's actually tamed them though, or at least It appears so according to their Ica stones. I believe it.)

Another note about the Ica Stones- they show the dinosaurs with spots on their skin. A depiction that I believe coincides with some Babylonian pictures, but I'm not totally sure about the Bablylonian part. . . . 


Obviously, I don't think that dragons ever were a myth. We have a lot of different cultures, (And their governments) holding records about them. The list is really endless, from European books describing the medicinal value of dragon blood and saliva, To the Chinese talking about great heroes who drained the land of water from Fu Hi's (Noah's) Flood and clearing the land of dragons in order to make the land habitual.

The ancient world has many legends that match up with one another, even early modern times, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_period or just a few centuries before, we still have stories of people fighting dragons, or really dinosaurs.

Bigfoot though. . . . I do not really believe in, simply because there aren't enough stories in my opinion or hard evidence. Unlike Dragons/Dinosaurs which have cultures all over the world documenting their existence up until a point in time when they became rare, but hey I can understand, right? Not good to have those monsters running around. XD

Even one of the earliest webster's dictionary has the word Dragon listed in it. Describing it as- "Now rare"

I can't remember when that dictionary was made though.

The Bible talks about dinosaurs, in the book of Job, which is believed to be a pretty early book. I believe the events of that book took place around the time of Abraham.


As for the monster squid. We actually had a guy go out there on the discovery channel and take pictures of it. They had to use a special camera that could withstand the pressure, it took a picture every 30 seconds or so, and they used some meat for bait, But I can't remember how large the bait was, or what kind of meat it was. We've also found incredibly large beaks on beaches which would belong to incredibly large squids. This is probably the monster with the strongest evidence of it's existence. ^^'

I'm a bit lukewarm on the subject: I find them fascinating from a cultural perspective (like Ireland's Fae, Japan's Oni, ect.), but as to the actual existence of Big Foot and the Chupacabra, well, I think it is within the realm of possibility, though so far most evidence has been either forged or too blurry to be believed. People who aren't believers may question me on why I believe in God, but not so much in these legends and my answer would be somewhere within the realm of 'I have eyewitness reports right here' and pull out my bible. At least the Bible is chronologically accurate. As for the 'monsters' being within the realm of possibility, scientifically they could be possible. If you think about it, there is much about the world that we don't know or haven't even seen. Who am I to say that such things don't exist right here and now due to natural selection (not to be confused with evolution)? These legends could have been man-made without us knowing, since mutations are not unheard of. It is either this, or the witnesses saw a like animal and thought it was something else entirely (I'm thinking Manatee and Mermaid). This is all just conjecture on my part, though. 

Let's first not use the word monsters to describe these guys.  Let's call them animals because they're animals.  They aren't inherently evil and they're not bad.  They're just animals trying to exist.  Monsters is a good word to describe people who are terrible people.  If Bigfoot is really walking around, he/she is just an animal, hanging out.

Saying that, I think there's a mix of reality and storytelling with all cryptids and creatures of human imagination.  The fact that cultures of different parts of the world with no contact have all come up with dragons and sea beasts mean part of it has to be true at some point.  These animals are a mix of our imagination and reality.

But big animals don't exist without a big support system.  Bigfoot would be eating a lot of food to support the height and weight and there's no way something like that would dodge human interaction or discovery this long.  I think the guys on that tv show Hunting Bigfoot or whatever are a bunch of clowns looking to make money.

There are parts of the world that remain mysterious and things probably live there that we've never seen before.  Sure, animals exist and humans don't know about them.  But these big fellas like the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc?  Nope.

Sword legion : Kind of interesting that ica stones are your favorite evidence 4 these monsters. They have been been proven to be most likly hoaxes. The cave where they were 'found' have conveniently never been found again. That is suspicious already. But the one who got these stones and publicized it was a dr. who bought them from a farmer. That farmer was arrested for selling them to a tourist. That farmer admitted that he didn't find the stones like he claimed, but made them himself. Many more people have been caught making forgeries off the stones made by this farmer.

In 1975, Basilio Uchuya and Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana admitted that they sold Cabrera stones they'd graved themselves and that they'd chosen their subject matter by copying from "comic books, school books, and magazines"

That dr who made so much money from these things says that later people showed him a cave where there were over 100K more of these stones, but he, as to be expected, has never shown anyone where the cave is. Even when there was a documentary crew who were trying to prove they were legit asked. People making a film that would prove he wasn't lying, and he won't show them the cave. Fishy fishy.

On top of that, this civilization has no other artifacts showing that they even existed. Just these etched stones. A civilization died out and left behind ONLY a bunch of stones in a cave where nobody else but one farmer (who admitted to making them himself) has ever managed to find since they were publicized? Very convenient, no? How there is not a single tool, bone, building, monument, etc to show evidence that they existed? Unless the extraterristrialist argument is right and they were aliens to left, taking all their stuff with them but the stones. 

I tend to not cloud my mind with these things, but given a choice whether or not I believe these creatures exist? I would say no, they don't and there's a good reason behind my answer. If they were claimed to be in existence, why haven't we at least captured one of them? Sure, we have evidence, but why not take it to the next step? Do we not have the technology or guts to commit this action? Heck, we invented a 3D Printer! Aren't we capable of capturing a huge ape, a giant octopus, or even a dinosaur that lives in a gulf? I believe if people put their minds together and build up teamwork, we would be able to. But instead, we choose not to do it, and that makes me rather frustrated. It's like somebody saying there's a pack of wolves in our village, and tosses a bloody animal on the ground. Yet, nobody tries to inspect it if it's true, or stand up to the cause. They just accept it how it is without digging deeper into the situation or forming a group to resolve this problem. Basically what I'm saying is people tend to be so trusting of other people, that they don't think it's necessary to do their own research. You can probably tell that I don't like lazy people by just reading this, hahah!

Kuti_Kat : As to your question of why we haven't, we have tried. There are a LOT of people who have dedicated their lives to finding and capturing these things. But nobody has succeeded. Which further supports them not being real in the first place.

rcarter2 : Thanks for telling me. I didn't know people did that, and I am thankful you told me in a kind way, instead of a wording it sarcasticly (I really do mean it-- thanks!).

Starting with the Kraken which is the legend of a gigantic squid-like sea monster that attacks and sinks ships - stories of this creature apparently begun in twelfth century Norway.  The oldest stories describe this creature as the size of an island and extremely vicious.  As the years went on the stories grew a bit tamer and the creature smaller and eventually the scientific community laughed at the thought of such a sea monster.  I think Sword legion mentioned this already, but in the mid-nineteenth century dead or dying carcasses of giant squid began to wash up on shores, mostly in Newfoundland, Canada and New Zealand.  More bodies was discovered and this again peaked the interest of the scientific community and they started to study these creatures.  The existence of a giant squid was soon accepted and the largest scientifically documented giant squid was a female that, including the tentacles, was 45 feet long.  However, the giant squid is apparently not the largest of these gigantic creatures.  The colossal squid is even larger and while documented colossal squid are not much longer that the giant squid, some suspect that they reach much greater lengths, but this has not been officially documented yet.  The info was based on massive beaks found in the stomachs of sperm whales, huge sucker marks on the heads of sperm whales and eyewitness accounts.  Some even go as far as to say that colossal squid of over a hundred feet exist, but there is no scientifically documented evidence to support this. You can have a look at this link if you really like to read further:  http://www.unmuseum.org/squid.htm
While the stories of the Kraken are greatly exaggerated, they were thought by many scientists in previous decades to be complete fabrications until giant squid were discovered and documented.  While there have been no officially documented squid attacks on boats, stories do exist from the last century of giant squids that attached themselves to boats.  This behaviour of these squids probably led to the legendary exaggerated stories of the Kraken attacking the boats.

Supposed sightings of the Loch Ness monster date from the sixth century until the present day.  The bulk of these sightings were reported when "Nessie mania" began in 1933.  The Loch Ness monster (or monsters) is reported to live in the Scottish Highland's Loch Ness.  This is the largest lake by volume in the United Kingdom.  It is huge.  I can testify of that since I had the privilege and opportunity to visit the lake a couple of years ago and no, I did not spot any large, long-necked reptiles  Evidence of this animal exists in the form of of course reported sightings, dodgy videos and photos and mysterious readings from sonar reports.  To justify and explain why the sightings have declined dramatically, some claimed that Nessie died a few years ago.  Very convenient.  A thorough sweep of the lake in 2003 produced no unexplainable phenomena.  Most Nessie enthusiasts associate the unidentified monster with the plesiosaur - commonly believed to be extinct. Not many people in the scientific community accept Nessie's existence and say that so-called evidence of the animal is the result of misidentification or pure fabrication by fraud or an over-active imagination.  Animals that could've led to the misidentification are massive eels, diving birds, otters or seals.  Grey seals seem to be the most likely explanation as several Nessie sightings have occured out of the water and grey seals have long, flexible necks and paddle fins similar to the plesiosaur.  Although I don't like (or always trust) wikipedia, you can read further on this subject there. 

The last one I'm going to discuss is Bigfoot.  There are a few other mysterious animals, but these three are the most well known.  Bigfoot is said to be a large, hairy, bipedal primate that inhabit the coniferous wilderness of the US and Canada.  They are thought to range in height from 6.6 to 9.8 feet and weigh over 500 pounds.  Reports say that they are extremely muscular and capable of using their "hands" to twist saplings in two.  They are also believed to be nomadic, largely solitary, very shy and mostly active at night.  There are very few in the scientific community that credits the existence of Bigfoot, but the organisation, Bigfoot Field Researchers insist that bigfoot is real.  This group, run by volunteers, claims that there is plenty of evidence for bigfoot in the form of hair, stool, footprints and of course sightings.  They argue that sightings of bigfoot are a historical phenomenon dating from indigenous people of North America until present day.  These reported sightings are spread across North America with the majority occurring along the western coast.  If bigfoot was indeed real -  it is proposed to be a type of ape.  This is supported by its reported human-like appearance, gorilla-like ridge on top of the skull and the report that close encounters are sometimes accompanied by an intense, gagging odor similar to the stench gorillas can emit from their sweat glands.  The fossil record supports the existence of a gigantic orangutan-like creature called Gigantopithecus and many bigfoot enthusiasts claim that this Asian ape is not extinct, just rare and now called "bigfoot".  The only known fossils for Gigantopithecus consist of teeth and jawbones, so the fossil evidence is not enough and provides little detail about the creature.  All Gigantopithecus fossils are exclusive to Asia, but those who believe the Bigfoot-Giganto theory say that they migrated from Asia accross the Bering land bridge (likely this land bridge would have been exposed during the Ice Age that followed the Flood) to inhabit North America. You can read further about this Bigfoot-Giganto theory here: http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/whatrtha.asp.
It does seem highly unlikely that such a large creature could have managed to remain so elusive when so much effort has been  spent over the last 50 years trying to prove its existence, but ultimately, if hard, irrevocable evidence of bigfoot were ever produced, would it be a problem for the biblical worldview? Nope. “Bigfoot”—like any other animal—would just be another example of a unique creature that is well-designed for its environment.  

So what is the Biblical view of these "Cryptids"?  Finding a creature alive today that was previously thought to be extinct is not unusual.  The coelacanth comes to mind.  If conclusive evidence showed that Nessie was a living plesiosaur, the evolutionary community would be a bit dumbfounded, because plesiosaurs are said to have gone extinct with the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago.  The creationist community, however would be surprised and excited, but not at a loss to explain it as the Bible teaches that plesiosaurs were created on Day 6 of Creation week, just 6000 years ago and likely died out some time after the Flood, 4300 years ago.  There is in fact much evidence in various art found around the world that indicates humans interacted with these creatures after the Flood.  This idea is completely consistant within a biblical worldview.  Many think however that finding a real life dinosaur would put the nail in the coffin of evolution, but this is not true.  Evolutionists would certainly think it an incredible and unanticipated discovery, but the evolutionary model is so pliable that the model would simply be molded to fit this new evidence.  While it is probably unlikely that any of these creatures are real, it is fun to speculate and imagine what would happen if a giant octopus or actual marine dinosaur were discovered alive today.  These creatures would simply showcase the glory of God's creation and the incredible complexity that He has built into everything that He has made.

SoL@R :

Nicely put. I am not totally sure about Bigfoot, but I am more open the idea now. ^^'

doomhammer :

Not all Ica stones are faked, though.

Oh yeah, they've been forged, (like anything else mind you- including "missing links")

But we actually have records of the Spanish people in the 1500s picking up these strange stones.

Now, the stones the Basilio and Irma dug up were about 500 grams, but Dr. Cabrera's, and other's collections have stones that vary, up to 1,000 pounds! The idea that one family forged all the Ica stone is ridiculous.

There is no way that simple peasants could have dug up something that size, let alone without equipment. And certainly not unnoticed.

Also going to a  Peruvian jail is no fun. The government won't feed you, clothe you, and if you're family doesn't come to help you, you will die in there. Both Irma and Basilio stated that they forged the stone to avoid imprisonment, but later When von Däniken visited the farmer in 1973, Uschuya confirmed to him that he had faked the stones; still later on, in an interview with the German journalist Andreas Fischer, Uschuya claimed the opposite. They were genuine, he insisted, and he admitted to a hoax to avoid imprisonment."

Sure, there are faked Ica stones, but not all of them. There's nothing "funny" about this, and no reason to make enemies with comments like that either- or dislikes. I like to talk to people about this who can actually discuss it, but I won't to people who just look down on me with spite, and talk like they're the smart guy all of the sudden.

If you want a debate, then be nicer. Otherwise their's no reason to talk to each other in the first place. A real debate must have great mutual respect.