Is the Loch Ness Monster proof against evolution?

I didn't know whether to post this here in cryptozoology or conspiracy in religion, but I recently read that a textbook written by the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum is claiming that the Loch Ness is a pleisaur, and therefore is proof the dinosaurs and man exist on the earth at the same time thus disproving evolution. I am amazed at the great lengths that people will go to prove or disprove their cherished beliefs. Now, I don't know whether Nessie exists or not, I was fascinated with the story as a child but as an adult I must see evidence that it exists before I will accept it as proof of anything. By evidence, I mean cadaver or skeletal remains.

No offense to any true believers out there, but I am curious...What is your take on this?

The Loch Ness monster, in a science textbook

"Is the Loch Ness Monster proof that"......
People make stuff up to get daft tourist's to spend loads of money?

reply to post by BrianDamage

Sorry mate, I hit enter before I finished my post. I tend to agree with your assertion though, it is no coincidence that almost several lakes near my town also have a "monster" but to date nothing but grainy photos and legends.

Bear Lake Monster
Great Salt Lake Monster

Funny, there is more evidence for a loch ness than there is for a deity...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by no1smootha

The only proof here is that these christians don't know the true meaning of the word proof.

How can something that isn't proven itself be proof for something else??

And how would an existing plesiosaur disprove evolution??

I thought there were a few animals that survived from prehistoric times the Coelacanth fish being one of them. It was thought to be extinct until rediscovered. As no-one has ever caught a Nessie it's a strange example to be using to try and prove a point.

All it proves is that some animals that were around in prehistoric times have survived and not gone on evolving, other branches of species from prehistoric times did carry on evolving.

and therefore is proof the dinosaurs and man exist on the earth at the same time thus disproving evolution

I thought we came from monkeys, not dinosaurs

Who's to say something dinosaur-like couldn't have snuggled down in a deep lake and survived whatever wiped out the other dinos?

Is the Loch Ness Monster proof against evolution?

Only if he can defeat Godzilla in Indian leg wrestling.

reply to post by Zarniwoop and DrHammondStoat

Technically we evolved from primates similar to apes not monkeys but I get your point.

Yes, I agree. From what I understand, many marine and land vertebrate survived the K-T event that wiped out the dinosaurs.

I actually believe man was around at the end of the dinosaur era and did interact with them.

This does not, however, disprove evolution in my view, it simply means we haven't got the theory right yet. After all, it IS still a theory and that's what science is all about - proving or disproving theories based on evidence.

The fact that the Christians have cottoned onto this and twisted it to their point of view is nothing new, they've been doing that sort of thing for centuries.

I should point out though that I am not sold on Nessie actually being real or not. I have read some sighting accounts that make me curious, but nothing concrete enough to convince me.

The Loch Ness monster is proof that people are too stupid to live. Nothing more. The "monster" is nothing more than confluences of waves caused by wind. That is all it is. Just little waves that added up to a big wave for a little bit. There aren't enough fish in the loch to feed even one animal that size, much less feed a breeding population.

Again, there is no bigfoot, no Loch Ness monster, the Bermuda Triangle is methane releases, the pyramids were made with wooden cradles and ropes, the cosgo artifact is a spark plug, crop circles are made by college students, and "chemtrails" are what you get when you introduce steam to a cold bit of air at 100% humidity, and so on. There are mysteries in the world. But not these. They have been solved. Move on to better ones.

Originally posted by Ookie
The Loch Ness monster is proof that people are too stupid to live. Nothing more. The "monster" is nothing more than confluences of waves caused by wind. That is all it is. Just little waves that added up to a big wave for a little bit. There aren't enough fish in the loch to feed even one animal that size, much less feed a breeding population.

Again, there is no bigfoot, no Loch Ness monster, the Bermuda Triangle is methane releases, the pyramids were made with wooden cradles and ropes, the cosgo artifact is a spark plug, crop circles are made by college students, and "chemtrails" are what you get when you introduce steam to a cold bit of air at 100% humidity, and so on. There are mysteries in the world. But not these. They have been solved. Move on to better ones.

Wow, thank the stars your opinion doesn't count for much in the greater scheme of things.

What the hell are you doing on ATS? Are you here to troll us and get on your high horse and claim we are all ignoramuses? Because if that is the case, please leave before you are ostracised off the site.

A thread title (although I appreciate that it was the news story headline, so not blaming the OP!) than can only be answered with a one word reply: No.

Reply to post by Kryties

"I actually believe man was around at the end of the dinosaur era and did interact with them.

This does not, however, disprove evolution in my view, it simply means we haven't got the theory right yet. After all, it IS still a theory and that's what science is all about - proving or disproving theories based on evidence."

Wait just a second, your saying the theory isn't right based on your 'belief' then you say a theory is proven or disproven via evidence. confuse me much? Lol





Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by strafgod


Read it again, it makes perfect sense. I believe in science, and science believes in evolution based on facts they have uncovered. This does not mean science has discovered ALL the facts, it means, however, that we are on the right track.

I am sorry if that is too complex for you to grasp.

short answer.... nope, its proof that A.C.E are all for religous propoganda tho

Reply to post by Kryties

No i've read it right, your saying the theory is incomplete because you believe man existed at the end of the dinosaur era. where is the evidence to support your beliefs?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by strafgod


I never claimed that was anything more than a personal belief based on some shaky evidence I have seen. I am not totally sold on this theory either, but for the moment I believe it until I find evidence otherwise. That is what science is about mate.

By the way, trying to twist my words against me will not work. Nice try.

Reply to post by Kryties

im not trying to twist your words, im not looking for an argument. you made a claim and I wanted to see evidence, thats all.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by strafgod


Mate, the post was clearly written and my meaning was obvious.