ForumsWEPRCryptozoology (no flame please)

22 4365
thoadthetoad
offline
thoadthetoad
5,633 posts
Peasant

When I say no flame, I mean please don't just say, "cryptids arent real" and end the post. I will flag this. I like cryptids and when I am older I aim to make it a hobby. Now then, on to the rules.

RULES
1. No flaming/short posts
2. Please use proper english.
3. NO FLAME WARS
4. This is not a debate, this is a discussion of the topic.
5. No double posts please (unless it is a P.S)

  • 22 Replies
florglee2
offline
florglee2
1,778 posts
Peasant

The Chupacabra is real, you can really tell from all the evidence.

florglee2
offline
florglee2
1,778 posts
Peasant

PS: Dont you think if someone had a real PS, they'd put it in there first post, and not a new one? This lets people get more points, which is really attracting to alot of people here.

woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

We discussed this on your other post florglee2. I dont think your blood sucked bodies are enough evidence to prove its existence. If all these creatures do exist then why hasnt anyone caught one yet( talking about all cryptids not just the chupacabra). We(mankind) has, using our superior technology and intellect, been able to capture some of the most dangerous and elusive creatures in the world. If all these cryptids were real then wouldnt someone have caught at least one of them by now? Thats what ithink anyway.

florglee2
offline
florglee2
1,778 posts
Peasant

Well, unless theres indescriminate evidence, not everyone will believe, so theres no use arguing, I believe. But there is a new species discovered every week, didja know that? I'm just hoping the next one is the Sasquatch, eh?

thoadthetoad
offline
thoadthetoad
5,633 posts
Peasant

We could barely even see a grey whale when they almost went extinct. Plus, a turtle can live past 100 years. Who is to say that these creatures are near extinct and have a high lifespan? I do not agree with most cryptid, (such as the dinosaur types) but I do agree with the smaller species.
Cupacabra, meh, I think it could be real, but it would be another genus of sasquatian.

quakingphear
offline
quakingphear
410 posts
Peasant

Some scientist, estimate that we've only discovered a fraction of Earth's species. One acre of the Amazon holds several thousands of species

quakingphear
offline
quakingphear
410 posts
Peasant

As for catching a cryptid by now, I saw some thing on the Discovery channel where they cought a new species of fish on their first day of looking.

woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

I'm just hoping the next one is the Sasquatch, eh?


Id be willingb to put good money down that it wont b the sasquatch.

One acre of the Amazon holds several thousands of species


Yes but i dont belive that each acre holds several thousand different species. I mean thats taking biodiversity to a whole new level. Altho i do agree that there must be lots of undiscovered species in the Amazon i doubt any of them are fantastical enough to be cryptids.
quakingphear
offline
quakingphear
410 posts
Peasant

I posted wrong, it is thousands of different species, it was an actual statistic, but I don't remember where I saw it.

thoadthetoad
offline
thoadthetoad
5,633 posts
Peasant

to me a cryptid could just be a near extinct animal that's been around for a while yet still unkown. On another note, there is several acres of undiscovered/unmaped jungles, and rocky areas, who is to say there isn't something there. Anotehr big part, we have only explored most of the surface of our planet.

woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

Wel is suppose that could be true i mean the jungle is a very diverse place but i eman acre after acre of the same 1000 species is the way i am interpreting it. Is it that in each acre there are 1000 different species not in another acre or is it just the same 1000 different species in each acre. Or does it not specify. Always be careful of statistics as they can be manipulated by people/organisations to portray things the way they want them to be shown.

thoadthetoad
offline
thoadthetoad
5,633 posts
Peasant

Good point, I have nothing to come back on that. But then again, this isn't a debate now is it? haha.

woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

Anotehr big part, we have only explored most of the surface of our planet.


I cannot see us(mankind) exploring the plantes crust or mantle in this century. The machinery required to dig through the crust would be massively expensive. It would also cost wayy too much. Also past the earths crust it is too hot for any animals to live as it is merely molten rock. Unless you mean creatues living in the earths crust but i beleive that we have found all of those creatures.
thoadthetoad
offline
thoadthetoad
5,633 posts
Peasant

I think so. And possibly the mantle. THere is also a spectrum of creatures underwater. We havn't even reached the bottom of the sea yet after all.

woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

That was going to be my next point. That the sea is where most of the species are yet to be found. Did you know we have explored more o space than of our own sea.

Showing 1-15 of 22