This is a thread to post and discuss any Myths/Legends that include a description of something that may have been a dinosaur in recent times.

I'll start it off with the description of Grendel; in Viking mythology, Grendel was a giant creature that had large, powerful jaws and short stubby arms. Sound familiar?

BTowns : is this in the right place?

I would say so. It's a topic about history, and there's opinions on it that can be debated using scientific and historical evidence, along with what we just think would be cool or fun, LOL. This is a good place for it.

One of the most well-known and well-documented cases of possible "dinosaurs in modern society" is the Loch Ness Monster. There are countless pictures and articles claiming that a beast named Nessie lives in Scotland's Loch Ness lake. Scientists reason that if it does exist, that it is more than likely a plesiosaurus that could have somehow been trapped in the area and managed to survive the Ice Age.

One more interesting possible Dino story comes from the heart of Africa in the a VERY recent time. A group of scientists went exploring in the heart of Africa's swamplands to study the flora and fauna, and were intrigued by stories about a strange creature the locals had known about for a very long time. The locals said that if you see a certain plant on the banks of any body of water and NO HIPPOS whatsoever, that you should STAY FAR AWAY. They described what the creature sounded like, which creeped out the scientists, but what was more disturbing was the description to the creatures appearance. It very much resembled a Plesiosaurus. Intrigued, the scientists went looking for it. They never saw it, but they all HEARD it, and none of them stayed in Africa afterwards.

The so-called "evidence" for the Loch Ness Monster has been fairly thoroughly debunked. It's at best a large pike or something that got blown out of proportion. And the idea of a Pleiosaur surviving millions of years is unlikely, especially since there is no reason to believe one exists.

As for the fabled African dinosaur, there needs to be actual physical evidence.

That being said, there are indeed plenty of dinosaurs around today. We just call them birds.

Traduweise : The idea of this thread is to debate, not just bash. You can post your opinions, but please give more substantial evidence than simply 'it's just not possible.' If you find more solid backing to your statements, feel free to post them. This is a point and counter-point thread. Anyone can post a new story, but if you argue for or against one of the stories, provide reasonable evidence to support your claims. I don't want this to become nothing more than a bunch of parrots reciting textbooks.

In short, don't just say 'this is stupid, it's already dis-proven.' Say HOW and WHY it is dis-proven. The same goes for the other side of the debate.

That being said, I will concede the second point as a legitimate point, but note that they had sketches drawn by the natives who were NEVER "educated" on what is supposed to be extinct.

One more point to add was that at one point in recent history, I believe it was in the early 80s, there was a group of deep-sea fishermen who hauled up something VERY dinosaur like, and the incident was quickly swept under the rug but was never really dis-proven; it was simply avoided by the scientific community.

WarpStarFerret : If this thread is to debate, then you are missing the most important aspect of debating: citations. You'll notice that at no point did I claim 'it's just not possible', 'this is stupid', 'it's already disproven', like you claim. I simply said that there is no evidence or that the evidence has been debunked. I was referring there to something like the Surgeon's Photo, where the picture taker admitted the photo was a fraud. You are the one making claims, you have to provide the evidence. Simply saying you have heard of something that the scientific community ignored is not enough. If you have no real evidence, I will point that out.

As for this deepsea dinosaur, once again, if you have pictures or something to substantiate your story, I would be interested in seeing it. If not, why should anyone believe you?

Traduweise : I was looking for you to post something like the Surgeon's photo example. This post is much more in line with what I want to see in this thread.

By the way, the first post is to present an argument to debate, not to prove it or disprove it. You're somewhat-though not entirely-missing the point of this thread.

Basically, person A mentions something possible that they heard of, and person B provides any helpful evidence they find either for or against the claim.

There's no need to get agitated. I want the people who read this to think for themselves; too many people nowadays never do research on their own and simply believe what other people say is true. This is to encourage people to research more than just one side. There IS legitimate evidence of more recent dinosaurs, as is there evidence against them. It's not one sided at all.

Here's one of blood being found in a dino fossil when it shouldn't have been there:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html

Is this what you were looking for?

I found the story about the possible dinosaur in the middle of Africa; there are quite a few holes in it, but it is quite interesting considering how many accounts of it there are from different people. Here it is:

http://www.unmuseum.org/mokele.htm

NOTE: Since the second URL was an edit, you might have to copy and paste it to visit the site.

WarpStarFerret : I'm not really sure where you're coming from, but nobody is getting agitated. The thing is, even if you're just starting a debate, you need to provide some sources. When Celticuprisng and then you posted about the Loch Ness monster and then the possible African dinosaur, you had nothing to back it up. I merely pointed that out. Your characterisation of a debate is entirely wrong. If person A mentions something, then the burden of proof is on person A to provide evidence for it.

If you're confused about burden of proof, here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Now, as for your actual link, I tried to follow the paper it was citing at the bottom, but that didn't work. I had to scrounge something a bit more credible up than the opinion of some editor at "Christiananswers.net".

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1607/183.long (Check the Discussion and Conclusion section especially, and the citations too.)
This is a fairly recent paper on blood samples found on dinosaur bones. The notion that the blood just "shouldn't" be there is misleading. It clearly is there, and the bones are clearly to dated to 65-68 million years ago. So instead of jumping to the conclusion that the bones must be from much earlier, scientists are studying how blood and soft tissue can survive extended periods, and there are several explanations covered here.

As for the dinosaur in Africa, your example can be summed up in the quote from its concluding paragraph "While the descriptions matched those heard since von Stein, the photos turned out to be inconclusive." It is entirely possible that there is a large dinosaur in the heart of Africa, but there is still no physical evidence.

But as I pointed out earlier, there are still dinosaurs around today. They make up a very large, successful group called avians. Those are your dinosaurs.

Traduweise : Finally this is starting to sound like a debate and not a bunch of haphazard comments.

http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/T_Rex_dinosaur.html

This one has statements from both sides.

Likewise, I don't feel that scientists should simply assume that all dinosaurs MUST be 65+ million years old; assumptions can hinder scientific reasoning, and don't really do much of anything to progress science. Parallels could even be made regarding the common belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. A theory is just that-a theory. No theory is 'right' just because it is the most popular view. The truth can be any number of things: to believe unflinchingly in one without doing any research whatsoever on your own is foolhardy. (Note: I am speaking about people in general here, don't get ticked)

Scientists are constantly molding findings and the theory of evolution every which way to find a means to get them to fit together, yet almost every new finding forces them to change their views and formulate new hypotheses. Although this is a form of the learning process, the fact that they cling to evolution so tightly and completely disregard any and all other possibilities can be aggravating; it's like telling a stubborn spoiled child that they are wrong. Theories change, but the one theory that is never questioned is evolution; if they don't have an answer that still supports evolution, they either change their theories or avoid the topic altogether. It would be all well and good if scientists could research new findings without introducing bias, but that is unfortunately impossible, as children are taught that evolution is infallible from a young age.

Regarding the Africa dino: I did mention that there were holes in the information. That was already established. I was merely stating that the evidence was conclusive enough to be intriguing at the very least.

Just out of curiosity, why aren't you touching the story of Grendel from the opening post?

Also, whether it is true or not, trying to simplistically call birds dinosaurs is dodging the purpose of this thread; we all know birds exist. We only have to look out a window to ascertain that. I want this thread to discuss dinosaurs in the present as they are commonly viewed: as large reptiles.

WarpStarFerret : Your link is just a copy of two news articles on scientists discoverying a T-Rex fossil with soft tissue still in it...I'm not sure what the point behind that is.

But I think you should actually read the link to the article I posted. Scientists do not simply assume the bones must be a certain age. Scientists do not make assumptions at all; that goes against the scientific method. They radiometrically test to find out. If you're unsure about radiometric dating, the idea isn't too complicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Another thing, there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. Once again, if you do not understand basic terminology, I can only suggest that you read up on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Besides, this has nothing to do with radiometric, which is a method, not a theory. Figures that you'd try and bring evolution into this. Ok, then. Show me your sources. You keep going on about wanting a debate, well the first step to debating is to back up your claims with credible citations. I gave you a detailed scientific paper on soft tissue residue in fossils. That paper itself has at least 50 more citations at the bottom if you want more. The mere fact that you are, for no apparent reason, trying to bring up evolution as a way of bashing scientists is only convincing me that you don't understand evolution. Scientific theories are flexible; when new evidence is found that does not adequately fit a theory, then more tests are done to determine if the theory itself needs revising-or even scrapping, or if the evidence is flawed. Evolution itself has changed over the years; using DNA to trace ancestry is a relatively new concept, and as it turns it, it also provides some of the strongest evidence for evolution.

Here's a quick example. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

It would be all well and good if you could just back up what you're saying with actual examples examples. I mean, children taught that evolution is infallible? Even at 3 I was shown (not simply told) how science adapts to new evidence. To tie into the DNA example, modern cladograms are an excellent example of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladogram

As for the African dinosaur, no, the "evidence" is not really all that intriguing. If physical evidence came to light, that would be intriguing.

As for the Grendel thing, I thought that was just a mild joke; you don't honestly expect people to believe a monster from a mythical folktale thousands of years old existed, to say nothing of being a dinosaur, do you? Or do you expect to believe that the thousands, if not millions, of mythical stories from around the world are also true?

Now your last point about birds and dinosaurs is simply tiring. I don't care if the common perception of dinosaurs is that they are large reptiles; there were plenty of dinosaurs that were quite small, even by today's standards (like this one http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/23/chicken-dinosaur-alberta.html). And birds are indeed reptiles, although this is a relatively new concept, and most people still group them seperately. Try this. http://www.ummz.umich.edu/birds/resources/evolhist.html

Traduweise :

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm

Radiometric dating is NOT without flaws. It has plenty, I wouldn't consider that concrete proof. Maybe one of several sources, but not the deciding factor.

Micro evolution is observable, but macro evolution is NOT observable; it is entirely based on conjecture and hypothesis. Not once has macro evolution actually been observed.

No amount of arguing on this point will amount to anything, as it is entirely opinion oriented.

What I meant regarding the evidence for the African dinosaur was that there was enough vague evidence to warrant an actual hunt for physical evidence. We didn't have physical evidence that the Earth was round beyond mathematical equations (Which, although it IS Educated conjecture, is still just that: conjecture) until the 20th century, so why are you implying that looking for physical evidence would be a waste of time?

ALL myths and legends, although twisted and warped through years of exaggeration and interpretation, have at least some shred of truth in them. It may be exceedingly difficult, but it is possible to find that shred of truth if you search hard enough. If you read the actual accounts of Grendel while considering that this occurred BEFORE fossils were found, you would be astonished at how closely the description matches a certain commonly known dinosaur.

I am well aware of the classifications they have labeled the birds with. This thread is to discuss dinosaurs that are SUPPOSED to be EXTINCT. Not present day birds. It is obvious that you never read my opening post, yet you accuse me of not reading anything. You are seeing what you want to see in what I write, not what I am saying.

This thread, if you had actually bothered to read the opening post, is about myths and legends that have descriptions strong enough to be linked to dinosaurs in more recent times. If you find that ludicrous, then make a thread of your own. I obliged your debate, and you responded by bashing the information I provided simply because it wasn't mainstream. I'm trying to get people to think. Just because it's mainstream science doesn't mean it's right.

WarpStarFerret : Alright. First, your citation is garbage. I said credible sources are important, and that isn't even remotely credible. It's fairly simple, actually. This "Trueauthority" website has no actual scientific credibility, and this is a perfect example of why that is. There are no citations in the actual article; they don't even do the normal creationist thing which is to trot out some obscure guy with a degree related area. It's just the opinion of a random person on the internet with no supporting evidence. Just look at the first claim made. Radiometric dating requires a closed system. Demonstratably false, as the system itself does not have to be closed; the actual elements being dated just cannot have been added or removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-Faure-9

Be sure to actually read the article this time, and go through some of the citations at the bottom.

For a more argumentative approach, try
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
And once again, be sure to go through the citations at the bottom. This isn't just stuff people can make up. Contrary to what the people at Trueauthority (dunno how any organisation with such a name can claim to be unbiased) say, radiometric decay is extremely stable and predictable. This isn't some concept people dreamed up overnight; radiometric decay has been tested for dozens of years by the best scientists in the field. Nothing short of nuclear fission changes its rate. If you have any actual evidence that it is flawed, and not someone's unsourced opinion, feel free to present it. Heck, you might just win a Nobel Prize.

I don't know why you keep trying to bring up evolution here, but the micro/macro-evolution thing always makes me chuckle because it demonstrates a basic lack of understanding with how evolution works. I'm getting tired of having to do your homework for you, so just read this.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01
The only difference between micro and macroevolution is time. If an organism evolves very slightly but is essentially the same organism, that is microevolution. If it does this over a period of millions of years, it becomes something new. That is macroevolution. The fossil record is fairly explanatory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

This is not just speculation or someone's "opinion". Your opinion can be anything you want; I doubt your standing in the scientific community is worth much. The fossils record is right here. You can deny it all you want, but it isn't leaving.
Here's a nice simple fish-toward-tetrapod example.
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/4/510/F1.expansion.html

And to read the full article, http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/4/510.full

Now back to your African dinosaur, and from what I've seen there were hunts for physical evidence. Don't try and twist my words; I never said that a search for physical evidence is a waste of time. I simply said that the searches we've already conducted turned up nothing. And just as an aside, the world is not round. It is an oblate spheroid, and I really don't understand how comparing the shape of a planet that is extremely difficult for a person to observe is in any way comparable to a dinosaur that can be clearly seen.

Great, you actually think Grendel was a dinosaur. What fossils are you going with, exactly? Has Grendel's skeleton been found somewhere? It's funny how you keep saying that we shouldn't assume things, and yet here you are, claiming, without evidence, that all myths and legends have some truth to them. But then I suppose you'll say they do because they all involve humans, and humans exist. But go ahead. Show me Grendel's remains. And while you're at it, look for the remains of the other 50,000 mythical creatures out there.

And I'm sorry if you don't like the bird example. You wanted dinosaurs, and I gave you the closest thing to a modern day dinosaur as an aside. It was not meant as a be-all answer to the thread. And instead of ignoring it or telling me you didn't think this was fair to begin with, you try to tell me that only big things count, because I suppose if it isn't the size of a Tyrannosaurus rex, it isn't a real dinosaur.

Just remember. I don't "bash" your information because it isn't mainstream. I criticise it because it is unsupported.

This isn't getting anywhere; I was hoping this article would get filled with interesting information about obscure knowledge, but it's simply turning into a flame war. Neither side is backing down, and I don't think anything productive is coming out of this.

BTowns :
CyroXero:

It might be best if this was closed before it gets truly ugly.

I wanted to debate 'what if's' and then my thread got trashed with this perpetually ongoing debate that will probably never die.

Well, you yourself said that this thread is to debate. Bad idea trying for a debate when you're going to bring up a whole slew of things you can't back up.

Reopening thread at users request, remember the thread is about dinosaurs living in more recent times, past the standard of dinosaur mass extinction and into our homo sapien era, infiltrating our culture through myths and legends. Don't use offensive or abrasive remarks about others arguments, but rather gently overpower them by presenting credible facts as a counterpoint.