...and finally

Plesiosaurs and shark carcases


dear Mr Richards i find that the information on the plesiosaur that was drug up in 1977 to be unlogical to be a shark for one thing it looks nothing like a shark and its dna may look like that of a mako shark but we never new the dna of plesiosaur in the first place i think the matter should be looked into more carefully before the jquump to conclusions that this species is a shark i think there worried that the public will panic if they heard that there are living reptils from the late creatacious period still alive and another thing how do we now the plesiosaur didnt adapt i mean if every dinosaur well say died of the flood or volcanos nothing would have survived today man animal nothing so somthing must have survived thank you for youre time mr richards


What do you think this is a photo of? It is of something that was pulled out of the ocean by Japanese fishermen in 1977? Just curious as to what your opinion might be.


See this site - it explains it in detail far better than I could. http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm

Do you realise that you will burn eternally in hell


Hello! My name is Jennifer! I was just looking at your website & I thought I would e-mail you & ask you some questions? Do you believe that the Plesiosaur still exists today? Please explain your answer! This is my own personal opinion, I believe that plesiosaur's still do exist! How long do you think it's been since Dinosaurs or Plesiosaur's have been here on earth? You know, most people will say millions & billions of years. I would have to disagree with that. This world is not that old. I mean just think about, we are in the year 2000 A.D. The world could not be much older than that! Also, here's another question. Do you believe that Dinosaurs & people lived at the same time? Please explain your answer again! If someone was to ask me that I would have to say, "Yes!" I do believe that Dinosaurs & people lived at the same time! Once again, think about it! In the Bible it clearly states The Creation starting in Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God created the heaven & the earth! Now, on Day 1: The Bible says that he created Night & Day. Day 2: There was the evening & the morning. Let's just get to where I'm going. Day 6: God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27) So I'm saying, Male & Female was Adam & Eve. On the 5th day is when he created all the animals, which would have to include Dinosaurs. Therefore, Dinosaurs & man would have had to live at the same time. One more question & I'll let you go. Are you a christian? Have you accepted Jesus Christ into heart? I got saved by the grace of God on October 23, 1997. He's done wondorous thing for me & I know he will for you. Please think about this. If you do not get saved, do you know where you will end up? You will end up burning eternally in hell. I know you don't want that. The bible also says that every hole in your body will have worms crawling out. That's grose I know, but that's exactly what will happen if you choose not to get saved. Hell is nothing fire & darkness. You say, "How is that possible for there to be fire everywhere, but pitch dark?" The fire will be so hot that it's clear! Please accept Jesus Christ today so you can live eternally!


Dear Jennifer

I don't think that plesiosaurs still exist - they are large, air-breathing animals which probably had to return to land to lay eggs, and I think they would have been noticed. The report of a plesiosaur being caught be Japanese fishing boats is nonsense - what the photos show is nothing like a plesiosaur, and genetic tests show it to have been a shark. That is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of evidence - there is no evidence to show that plesiosaurs still exist though, as we found in the case of the coelocanth, that doesn't rule it out completely. Personally, I'd love to examine a live plesiosaur to find out how much of what I've tried to work out from small clues is accurate.

The age of the earth is something we know from many branches of science, and I have no reason to doubt that they are reasonably acurate. The idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old can be shown to be untrue by looking at such things as tree rings, varves, deep ocean cores, and ice formation on the Greenland Icecap. In each of these cases years show as anual deposits (or rings in the case of trees) which can be counted, and take us far back into the past - up to 30 million years ago in the case of the deep ocean cores. Dating rocks by a variety of radio-active elements is based on what we know of physics, and simply to dismis them would also dismis most of what we have learned of the science of physics over the last 150 years. Science is a web of connected knowledge, and it's simply not possible to take out one strand and reject it without rejecting a whole lot more.

If you believe that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time, it is not based on any physical evidence whatsoever. The picture of the history of life built up by centuries of research relies heaviliy on the concept of evolution, as do much of the modern sciences of biology and genetics. It is not a theory which was invented to attack religion, it is a model of the way life has developed on this planet built on overwhelming physical evidence. Many of the early workers in geology and palaeontology were devout Christians who resisted strenuously ideas of evolution and change, but were forced to change their attitude because of this overwhelming evidence.

I have read books written by scientific creationists such as Duane Gish and Henry Morris, and the content worries me. This is not because it has forced me to reconsider my attitude to evolution and geology, but because I find the way they present the facts basically dishonest. Creationism is not science - it denies science. I find it ironic that the people who claim the moral high ground are dishonest in their presentation and argument.

You should consider carefully the following passage from Steve Jones excellent book 'Almost like a Whale' which presents the science/faith dilema more clearly than I could: "To deny truth on grounds of faith alone debases both science and religion. This point was made by Galileo himself. Summoned to explain his views, and their conflict with Scripture, he argued that the Church had no choice but to agree with the discoveries of science. It would, he said be 'a terrible detriment for the souls if people found themselves conviced by proof of something that it was made a sin to believe'. Creationists have not yet faced that fact."

Consider this: Your beliefs describe a the model of a small, brief universe in which mankind under God has a central role. The model of the Universe built by science is vast beyond our understanding, old beyond our comprehension, complex beyond any possibilty of our ever understanding even a fraction of the whole. Which model is closer to the mind of God?

Why don't you go to Loch Ness and do some real science?


If I lived as close to Loch Ness as you apparently do, I would spend time at Loch Ness until I saw, whatever it is, that people see. That is what scientists do. They don't sit back and repeat the nonsense that today's pseudo science teachers are saying. There have been about 11,000 sightings at Loch Ness, including one man who has seen the creatures 18 times. Are all these people crazy or mistaken or lying? Give me a break.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Ballard, the man who found the Titanic? He spent over a year at Loch Ness trying to unravel the mystery. He got some interesting recordings and a couple of very interesting photographs. I heard him speak, just after he returned from Loch Ness. That's what a real scientist does. He gets out in the field and does real research.

I live about 4 1/2 hours southeast of Lake Champlain, on the New York - Vermont border in the US. Challenged by the 1000 or so reports of a large creature in this lake, I spent a week-end there in May of 1996. And, you know what? I did see one. I can't say whether it is a plesiosaur, or a pliosaur, or what it is,- but the one I saw was at least 7 metres long and perhaps as along as 15 metres. It was very dark in color, nearly black. There are no known creatures in Lake Champlain that even remotely resemble this description.

I went back in late June of the same year with videocamera in hand, hoping to get the creature/s on tape, and spent a week there, but saw nothing. I now know why. The creatures are almost always seen just after dawn or just before dark during the period around a new moon, when the insects and fish are the most active. The week that I was there, was during the full moon,- the worst possible time.

The creature I saw in May of 1996, was chasing a large fish that was about a metre long. I watched it for perhaps five minutes as it came closer and closer to my position on shore. I first observed it breaking the surface, and then I could see its shadow coming toward me underwater. I was about ready to flee, when it turned and went back out into deeper water.

You have allowed yourself to be brainwashed into believing in the millions of years nonsense. Real scientists keep their minds open and are willing to think

" outside the box ". You weren't there millions of years ago, so why are you allowing yourself to believe this nonsense?

The coelecanth supposedly died out hundreds of millions of years ago. I guess somebody forgot to tell the ones which are living happily off the coast of Madagascar. Now that there have been about 200 found, there aren't many scientists who still believe that this is a missing link. And, that's just one example.

There is a colony of large creatures in Loch Ness, Lake Champlain, and in numerous other deep water lakes around the world. Some day a real scientist will discover exactly what they are, and provide the answers to your questions. Were I a little younger and had sufficient time and money, I would attempt to be that person. If you were a real scientist, you would make the attempt, yourself.


A) I have no interest in whatever may or may not be present in Loch Ness. Why should I waste my time and money on something that doesn't interest me?

B) None of the accounts coming from Loch Ness or anywhere else are of anything that resembles a plesiosaur - other than a few very obvious fakes.

C) If anyone can offer me any hard evidence - i.e. a single bone - from any lake from which such sightings have been reported, I'd be very happy to have a look at it to see if it is from a plesiosaur.

D) There is a difference between being open-minded and being gullible. I can be open-minded and sceptical at the same time. It's the function of a scientist to be sceptical. Advances in scientific research come about by scientists being very sceptical about the findings of other scientists. That's why I can write this response to your email on a machine whose functioning parts are the outcome of many years of scientific research. It's lots of people asking why? how? and show me.

E) I don't understand this talk about brainwashing. Who brainwashed me? How? Why?

F) What the hell has the coelacanth to do with this?

Another concerned creationist?


Dear, Dear, Richard,
You're wrong, and that's sad. I will keep you in my prayers and hope your eyes are opened soon. Until then, I recommend the Bible, Kent Hovind, and Ken Ham. God's blessings on your search for religious security. God loves you, no matter what you do, and all he wants is you in his kingdom forever, just because you are Richard; and He created you and wants you with Him. It's that simple, and you could find immediate relief from all this searching and ridiculous theories of an old earth. Evolution is a religion, not a science, but it is still wrong. Creationism is derived from the Bible, the basis for the religion of Christianity, of which I am proud to be a part of. Please truthfully search your heart. And just once, I challenge you to search out the real truth as adamantly as you preach evolutionism. Anyone could sit down like a child and stubbornly protest to move, afraid that you could turn out to be wrong. But, if you were really searching for truth, you would be looking for it, instead of lazing around, being indoctrinated by the world, and conforming.
Trust and obey. - Concerned Christian Creationist


Dear concerned Creationist

Re: Kent Hovind
Kent Hovind's "Dissertation"
An Evangelist Confronts Hovind

Re: Ken Ham
Ken Ham caught fibbing once again
Ken Ham happily lies to people

If one is searching for the truth, one must start with an open mind.

All science starts with the question 'Why?' If we simply accepted the answer 'because God made it that way', there would be no science, no technology, no medicine. Because people asked 'Why?' - 'Why should you tell me what to do just because you say that God gave you authority over me?', the pilgrim fathers sailed to found a colony in America. Because people asked the question 'Why do we get ill?', and didn't accept the answer 'Because you are sinful and God is punishing you for your sins' we developed modern medicine.

The theory of evolution did not develop over two hundred years because of a plot by a clique of scientists to overthrow religious belief: it developed because the evidence that supports it is so overwhelming that it cannot be dismissed by anyone with an open mind.

I have tried to read the words of the 'scientific' creationists with an open mind. They are full of flaws, misrepresentations, facile explanations, deliberate distortions and downright lies. In my view the people peddling those beliefs as science are little more than confidence tricksters.

If you believe in God, do so on the basis of faith, which does not require proof. If you try to support faith with science, you end up with neither.

I have always asked the question 'why?' until I got a satisfactory answer. If nobody can give me a satisfactory answer, I continue to ask. I was kicked out of some of my classes at school for asking too many questions. If anyone tried to brainwash me, they'd have a tough time.

Don't be taken in by confidence tricksters