American Creationists Searching For Living Dinosaurs In Africa

dinosaursVia the Institute for Creation Research, William J. Gibbons on his scientific expeditions to the Congo in search of the elusive surviving dinosaurs which he and some other creationists are convinced are hidden there:

Perhaps the most exciting prospect for the world of creation science is the possibility that dinosaurs may still be living in the remote jungles of the world. Evolution and its accompanying necessity of long ages of evolutionary development would be hard pressed to accommodate a living dinosaur. Such is the story of Mokele-mbembe, a creature that some scientists believe could be a surviving sauropod dinosaur. The one area today that would favor living dinosaurs is the vast and unexplored swamps of equatorial Africa.

Very little was heard of Mokele-mbembe until 1976 when herpetologist,
James Powell from Texas, traveled to Gabon to study rainforest crocodiles. Powell picked up stories from the Fang people about an enormous river monster called N’yamala, and a local witchdoctor called Michael Obang picked out a picture of the diplodocus from a book on dinosaurs as being a dead ringer for the N’yamala which he saw exit a jungle pool in 1946.

All the eyewitnesses agreed that mokele-mbembes live in the rivers, streams, and swampy lakes, and that they are rare and dangerous. Time ran out for Mackal and Powell, and they headed back to the U.S., tantalized by the reports.

My own (first) expedition to the Congo took place from November 1985 to May 1986. Although we were delayed in Brazzaville for several weeks by the slow-motion bureaucratic system, Pastor Thomas graciously used his contacts in the various government departments to help us get underway.

My second expedition was launched in November 1992 and doubled as an emergency delivery of medical supplies to the mission station in Impfondo where the missionaries maintained a free clinic. Once again our guides were fearful of remaining in the area and we had to cut short our exploration of the swamps. Although many of the inhabitants of the Likouala Region know exactly where we can observe and film a specimen of Mokele-mbembe, they believe that to speak openly of the animals to white outsiders means death. It was nothing more than fear and superstition that was stopping us from making a major discovery.

  • Anarchy Pony

    There’s some right out my window right now. They’re called birds.

    • sweetie23

      There has been research that disproves that. Go look it up.

      • Andrew

        I won’t do your work for you. Cite the research or I say you’re lying.

        • ConcernedVoter

          That’s all you seem capable of anyways. The fact is, the definition of science, down to the scientific method that is taught in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL nowadays is that something does not make it past the term “theory” unless it can be observed and replicated. Evolution never has, and never will be observed, much less replicated. It takes “millions of years!” and yet some scientists will tell you that certain animals go unchanged for “millions of years” at the same time. Well, which is it? Make up your mind. Do life forms change drastically over time, as evolution would suggest, or do they remain unchanged?

          That’s one thing evolutionists fail to understand. Science is what you can see and prove. Evolution can’t be seen. Therefore requires faith to fill the gaps science can’t. Which… sounds oddly familiar. Oh yeah. Every religion in the world requires the same thing. Tons of Christian Biblical accounts, locations, and artifacts can be proven by Science, and yet Science can’t point to the sky and say “There’s God”. Faith is required, purposely if you go by the Bible, to fill the gaps.

          So what’s the difference? Scientists, and followers of evolution, seem to ignore the very methods by which science is defined to continue preaching a theory that cannot even pass the scientific method, but then want to turn around and apply that very same method and say “creationists don’t live in reality”.

          Hipocracy and blatant stupidity at its finest. The sad thing is, sheep like you actually follow it just as blindly as the religion you profess to be so ludicrous.

  • Hadrian999

    “Baby” must be on cable

  • Trevor Smith

    Where can I sign up!?

  • lifobryan

    They’re looking in the wrong spot. The dinosaurs are on Mount Ararat, hiding behind Noah’s Ark.

    You just need special goggles to see them:

  • mrm1138

    Evolution and its accompanying necessity of long ages of evolutionary
    development would be hard pressed to accommodate a living dinosaur.

    I don’t follow their logic. Wouldn’t it just be evidence that this particular species was better suited to adapt to this particular area and was therefore able to survive? Or am I overthinking this, and they just don’t understand how evolution works?

    • Anarchy Pony


    • Brian Shanahan

      Yes on all counts.

      Creationists don’t understand reality, that’s why they want us all to return to the simple strictures as laid down by a book written 2,500 years ago.

    • sweetie23

      Even what’s considered the “best” scientists don’t understand how evolution is supposed to work. They’re always too busy trying to fill in the gaps that evolution leaves gaping wide that swallows their entire argument.

  • Juan

    Good old American fundies, always good for a laugh:)

  • Kropotkin1936

    Why do Christians have to spew their batshit over what is an otherwise fascinating story? I would love for this to be true, but such sources are dubious at best. Also, in NO WAY WHATSOEVER would this disprove evolution, I don’t know where they’re getting that at all

    • sweetie23

      Evolution first and foremost disproves itself over and over and over again. Christians don’t have to lift a finger on that one.

      • Andrew

        Can you give an example of it disproving itself?

  • Anarchy Pony

    You know, a long-ass fucking time ago, I remember a movie I think was about Mokele M’bembe with a baby that was captured and then the heroes had to try to return it to the jungle. I can’t remember what it was called or who was in it, but I remember seeing it when I was a kid.

    As usual wikipedia has the answer:

    I didn’t notice, but I guess Hadrian already mentioned Baby.

    • lifobryan

      Yes! That’s “Baby” an earnest & erstwhile ‘classic,’ of which I too have fond childhood memories.

      That said, I think your choice of hyphen positions may be inadvertently significant in regard to this topic.

      A “long-ass fucking time” certainly suggests nostalgia, but a “long ass-fucking time” is just plain hot. And might … just *might* … explain why dinosaurs are extinct ….

  • Chugs Rodiguez

    i don’t get it. There are animals right now are “living dinosaurs” – i can see one in about 10 minutes if i walked fast down to my local aquarium .

    Sharks have been around for hundreds of millions of years almost unchanged.

    • sweetie23

      That’s hilarious when you think about it. “Hundreds of millions of years almost unchanged” – somehow, sharks escaped evolution’s supposed steady hammer. Why? What would make them so special compared to other species? Sounds like a load of tripe to me.

  • Rob Lai

    Shark. Coelacanth. Ginko Biloba. Cockroaches. Tuatara. Supreme Court Justices.
    Your argument is invalid. Now fuck off.

  • DeepCough

    There certainly are dinosaurs in Africa, and you’d be hard-pressed not to find them:

    they’re called “crocodiles,” and like their ancestors, would have no problem eating stupid prey.

  • SCowan3

    One way to get an expense paid vacation to africa, I guess.

  • Megan Routledge

    I love this… Creationist Science… it is laughable. Why do they think finding a dinosaur would discredit evolution? We know there are prehistoric animals still around… piranhas, crocodiles and even some birds are not very far in their evolutionary travels from then to now. Science is about discovering what we don’t already know, not searching for and concocting evidence to prove something that they want to.

    • sweetie23

      Evolution does just that, though – concocts evidence where there is none. There’s been no hard proof anywhere of a change of kind, just adaptations. And any mutations have always never been beneficial. So, in short it’s just talk and trying to convince everyone that “ideas” and “theories” pass as facts.

  • Grant Wesley

    As a Methodist, this upsets me. For another example in sheer close-mindedness, check out this hilarity:

  • sweetie23

    I want one of you, just one, to give me proof – that’s cold, hard factual proof and not some dippy theory or idea – that there has been a change of kind that would prove once and for all that evolution has occurred. Not adaptations – please, if you don’t know the difference between “change of kind” and “adaptation,” go look it up and spare yourself some embarrassment. Mutations don’t count either, since there’s never been a beneficial one documented.

    Oh and, to give you a small clue, the change of kind has to have been observed by an actual respectable source. “But that’s impossible! It takes millions of years!” you might say. Well see, that’s the point. You’re all going off of someone else’s word and no proof you can observe yourself.

    Evolution is a religion because it is based on faith. You have faith that scientists are telling you the truth when not one of them has ever observed evolution happen.

    One change of kind please. Go.

    • Andrew

      The difference between “adaptation” and “change of kind” is that “adaptation” has a fairly definite meaning, whereas “change of kind” is doublespeak.