Comments on: Elementum Bestia

By: TrueIsrael

TrueIsrael — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:51:37 +0000

greatanarch, you obviously do not know what the word giants means in Genesis. It translates as bullies or tyrants. It has nothing to do with oversized people. All people who quote the scriptures should purchase a concordance and make sure they understand what is being said instead of letting their imaginations take over.

By: fuzzy

fuzzy — Thu, 03 May 2007 01:27:58 +0000

If ‘“darwinism” does not equal “science”’ (Bob K.), what DOES it equal?

Wiki sez Science can be defined as “…a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.”

“The Scientific Method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measureable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning. It seeks to explain the complexities of nature in a replicable way, and to use these explanations to make useful predictions.”

Isn’t that what Darwin did – investigate and acquire and observe and measure and objectively analyze evidence, then formulate and postulate and publish his Theories – in the Scientific manner?

Moreover, isn’t there room in all of Philosophy for the speculative co-existence of Intelligent Design (by whoever) and Evolution, considering all available evidence?

[And if ID was from a faultless God, how come I had (until recently) an apparently useless appendix?]

By: heinselman

heinselman — Tue, 01 May 2007 22:35:50 +0000

The entry that is being tied towards “creationism” in this book is in fact not creationist based. Yes, Phillip O’Donnell wrote a book that had a religious overtone (“Dinosaurs: Dead or Alive?”), but in this entry the work is based on the anecdotal accounts of South American cryptids as is not religious based.

The viewpoints, regardless, in these books are presented to show the diversity as well as style of authors. The diverse entries in this work cover a wide range, and as such each has a rightful place. Likewise the author selection was to bring forth both known and not-so-well-known authors, as such authors ranging from high school age through college educators were picked through a random generation of over 100 names.

If any of the pieces is to be controversial, it may well be Dr. Dwight Smith and Gary Mangiacopra’s entry in which Homo floresiensis is theorized as a distinct genus apart from Homo.

Craig Heinselman
Peterborough, NH

By: Bob K.

Bob K. — Tue, 01 May 2007 21:27:47 +0000

Well greatanarch, I think your post shows your own personal prejudices quite well. I think the molecules-to-man scenario is completely absurd on the face of it, and I’m hardly alone in that assessment. Evolution is an interesting theory, I suppose; but “darwinism” does not equal “science”. Unfortunately, it is the entrenched orthodoxy-for now. I don’t believe that will be the case in the near future as the Darwinist house of cards will come tumbling down in the not too distant future when the current tools of censorship, intellectual Stalinism, and crude ridicule fail to cover the gaping holes in the theory. Meanwhile, I hope neither one of us crosses a Squatch in an angry mood.

By: greatanarch

greatanarch — Tue, 01 May 2007 19:21:00 +0000

It’s the use Creationists make of the limited and ambiguous evidence for cryptids (which is all the evidence we have) that bothers me. Example: I found an article on the monsters of Lake Labinkir by Richard Freeman reproduced on a Creationist website (without acknowledgement naturally), where it was being used to further the idea of surviving dinosaurs! There is no particular reason to believe that anything in Labinkir is even a reptile, let alone a dinosaur; if it was, it would no more suggest creation or ID than a surviving coelacanth does. I suspect if your Creationist were really knocked down by a Sasquatch, he would go home and write an article around Genesis 6:4 (‘There were giants in the earth in those days’, in my King James edition).
Personally, I feel the same way about a cryptozoology book with Creationist contributions as I would about a book on geography with chapters by the Flat Earth Society.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Tue, 01 May 2007 12:58:36 +0000

looks interesting. good mix of stuff. and although they shouldn’t really, good production values do matter, so well done on the format.

By: Bob K.

Bob K. — Tue, 01 May 2007 05:27:29 +0000

“Theoretically Does it Matter: Evolution and Creationism in Cryptozoological Thought”…….
Of course it doesnt. The cryptozoologist simply wants to know if a certain animal exists or not. If it does, then whatever origins theory you subscribe to may then be brought to bear on what your opinion of this beast is, was, etc-per your own pleasure. I am a creationist myself. If Bigfoot exists, it exists for the Darwinist, the Creationist, the Transpermiaist[if there is such a term], whoever. Or, think of it this way: if you wandered into a Sas’ territory, close to where it had its young, and it knocked you about 20 yards down the trail, would your’ level of pain or injury be different depending upon what ‘origin of species’ you subscribed to? Case closed.

By: heinselman

heinselman — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:19:27 +0000

The term “Antediluvian” can also apply as “from or belonging to a much earlier time”…… It is in this meaning the term is utilized.

However, there are more “creationist” researchers out there than many may think, and some (not all) hold strong skills in analysis and research.

A future work, or potential one, deals with this mis-conception a bit further: “Theoretically Does it Matter: Evolution and Creationism in Cryptozoological Thought”…….

One additional note, the book is a standard oversized paperback printed through Print-On-Demand (POD). Previous books were printed and spiral-bound at a low quality level in presentation, but not content. The earlier ones are available still at http://www.strangeark.com/crypto.html

Craig Heinselman
Peterborough, NH

By: greatanarch

greatanarch — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:32:41 +0000

Looks like some fascinating stuff in there. I just hope ‘Antediluvian forms…’ doesn’t mean that some Creationist material has crept in.

By: proriter

proriter — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:47:34 +0000

Perfect binding, of course, is a softcover bind with a flat spine on which the title can be printed. It’s a step up in quality from GBC (spiral) binding and stapled-spine binding but not quite as luxurious as saddlestitching. Sounds like a great deal at 11.99.