Digg - 10 mystifying beasts that science has yet to explain

167 Comments
Who Dugg It?

divinediva, on 11/09/2008, -1/+27Quick, kill them before they destroy us!
- sanman, on 11/10/2008, -2/+5no, coz I read it as mystifying breasts
- fuzzybeard, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Doctors Freud and Oedipus will see you now, sir.
- Iamalawyer, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2DUGG for use of the word BEAST.
webresources, on 11/09/2008, -2/+34The best thing about mysterious creatures is they never extinct :)
- Wrathernaut, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Once we've turned the entire Pacific Northwest into a parking lot, and placed summer homes on the upper slopes of Everest, the BigSasquaYeti crowd will claim we never found them because we destroyed their habitat.
  
  Similar claims will be made about Nessie escaping when global warming joins the Loch with the ocean.
- liquisoft, on 11/10/2008, -0/+6Indeed. It seems as though every mythical creature is also immortal and defies all logic of evolution and "survival of the fittest".
- p3ngwin, on 11/10/2008, -0/+8this article should read :
  
  "10 mystical creatures yet to be proved REAL"
  
  Science already has evidence on its side, the evidence that these things DON'T exist. the complete lack of any evidence credible to anyone more competent than a moron.
- OwdenBowden, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2That is because they do not eat at McDonalds.
Haoie, on 11/09/2008, -0/+46Nowadays you can't even tell if it's a hoax, or some elaborate viral advertising scheme.
- Murdats, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4can't it be both? like the recent 'discovery' of a 'bigfoot corpse'?
- Enasni1212, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5There's a difference?
ileftfark, on 11/10/2008, -0/+69Why is the article dated Nov. 6, 2008, but then goes on about a possible new movie with Richard Gere called the 'Mothman Prophecies'?
- Sherman901, on 11/10/2008, -0/+15that's exactly what i was wondering. i was like wtf, i thought i saw that like 5 years ago?
  - travis1982, on 11/10/2008, -0/+12that's because the mothman made you think it was 5 years, in reality...it was mere moments...muaha..muahahaa. gay
- loganava, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4same here... it must an old article posted again on November 6th.
- Sornos, on 11/10/2008, -2/+6That movie scared the ***** out of me.
  - faceless323, on 11/10/2008, -9/+3you must scare easily.....BOOO BITCH!!!
- MsGo, on 11/10/2008, -1/+9The post's been ripped off, I'd wager.
  Buried.
- SinnerChrono, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Ok, Am I the only one who got the joke?
  - ScottyAnimal, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4yes
  - dizsid, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3yup.. your'e the only one...funnyman
- endlessmike49, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Obviously the author had obtained the ability to write in the year 2002 but send it into the future via the Internet!
ABJ974, on 11/10/2008, -2/+11Most of the beast on this list I've heard of before like the Mothman, Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster and so on but Spring Heeled Jack and The Loveland Creature are new to me. Good read all around but I wouldn't want to run into any of those guys in a dark place.
- hasiabh, on 11/10/2008, -0/+5I read about spring heeled jack. or Jumpin Jack Flash as they called it. I believe once some sepoys opened fire on him too ( according to an account) but he jumped 18 feet in the air to the roof of the building he was cornered up against.
  
  In India a few years back there was an "Apeman" that was going around pulling peoples eyes out at night... turned out to be a case of mass hysteria.. hysteria btw... means "wandering uterus".
DigSomeMore, on 11/10/2008, -10/+8At least some of these are true, i wonder which ones, maybe one day we will see...
- TommyHigh, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3"Some people believe they actually might have. Living dinosaurs!"
  
  That one is arguably true. There are many living types of Archosaurs;
  
  Crocodilians; including; alligators, crocodiles, caiman, and gharial.
  Also, the almost 10,000 living species of Aves (theropods AKA Birds) could be argued to be, dinosaurs.
sgiffy, on 11/10/2008, -17/+41See also unicorns, leprechauns, and Jesus.
- archer104, on 11/10/2008, -7/+13Really? You think Jesus never existed?
  - Khast, on 11/10/2008, -4/+9You really should meet him, he lives in downtown L.A., Great guy.
  - Jack8274, on 11/10/2008, -15/+6You think he did? Thanks for showing your massive ignorance on Digg.
  - staticfire, on 11/10/2008, -8/+6i doubt he existed
  - archer104, on 11/10/2008, -5/+16"Today, scholars generally agree that Jesus was a historical figure whose existence is authenticated both by Christian writers and by several Roman and Jewish historians."
    
    http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565222/Jesu ...
    
    "Among non-Christian writers of antiquity, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger refer to Jesus, as does Josephus (Joseph ben Matthias) in at least one passage."
    
    http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0859028.html
  - omgwtflawl, on 11/10/2008, -4/+10"Among non-Christian writers of antiquity, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger refer to Jesus, as does Josephus (Joseph ben Matthias) in at least one passage."
    
    Written decades or centuries after the man was purported to exist? Nothing contemporary at all? Not to mention his whole story is a rip-off of the story of other gods who have come before him. I don't think the man ever existed in the first place.
  - JigoroKano, on 11/10/2008, -7/+13I love how Encarta has the balls to make such a grand statement with absolutely no source reference. Especially considering that it's so bogus.
    
    The Josephus reference is known to have been a forgery since the 17th century. Including it pretty much reveals a lack of knowledge on the subject.
    
    Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny only give an early account of Christians (not Christ). So they aren't particularly relevant unless we are debating the existence of Christianity.
    
    I'm not going to make the argument that Jesus didn't exist historically. But at the same time, I know that the evidence does not exist to make a perfectly solid argument that he did.
    
    From the few historians I've heard from, the current view is that there was _probably_ a Jesus or at least multiple rabble rousers and prophets who were merged together into one character. I find the second theory more plausible given how much overlap there is between the Gospels and other religious stories.
  - jfor4, on 11/10/2008, -7/+9you can believe he wasn't who he said he was, but not believing he existed is about the same as not believing alexander the great existed. Modern scholars all agree on his existence, they just question his divinity.
  - Fragnarg, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Religion....Keep it to yourself if you're going to be cruel.
- kinseyincanada, on 11/10/2008, -3/+16please lets not turn this into a anti-religious thread.
  - KountChocula, on 11/10/2008, -4/+2might I also recommend the three little pigs....thats a good story and also little red riding hood, such a good ending, well except for the x-rated part where grandma gets eaten but you know.......
  - strictnein, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2"x-rated part where grandma gets eaten"
    
    X-rated? What version of Little Red Riding Hood did you read?
Sornos, on 11/10/2008, -3/+10I'll believe when I get a corpse. Or at least a really good video or image.
- Sacrifice, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2I can understand believing in these creatures before cameras and camcorders became so common, it is just not possible now. I am sure back 300 or more years ago (before encyclopedias and moderns zoos) many odd/rare animals were spotted and people argued about what they were.
DrCyclops, on 11/10/2008, -0/+42I didn't know that science was required to explain creatures that haven't been proven to exist.
- rhapsodisiac, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Bingo.
- FLarsen, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2These guys are confusing anecdotal and empirical evidence.
  
  @"...unfortunately in most cases, without a shred of evidence.":
  I'd say "in all cases".
q1006662, on 11/10/2008, -1/+265 pages for ten items!? This is getting ridiculous.
- AutomaticTLC, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3Welcome to About.com.
  - Kajarago, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Don't welcome me, bro!
- patm1987, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Click print in the upper right. I tried to link it but they have some sort of crazy advanced anti-hot linking technology on their print page.
AutomaticTLC, on 11/10/2008, -2/+41I read "breasts."
- javaroast, on 11/10/2008, -1/+16Those are more mystical than anything on this list for most diggers.
  - Jack8274, on 11/10/2008, -1/+11I dunno, I see quite a few of them daily on websites that proves their existence. Now actually physically examining the specimen is quite impossible.
  - Mujokan, on 11/10/2008, -0/+6I heard a couple of guys in Georgia saw one.
  - DaHuuuuuudge, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5@Mujokan
    Was it their cousin's?
- colb15, on 11/10/2008, -2/+4I did too... neat.
- larrybear, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2So did I. I was more than ready to research as well.
- TunaFishGangsta, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3I as well, wishful thinking I guess.
- Zaggynl, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Thank you, I feel slightly more normal now.
- diggitalism, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1only on digg™
- faded242, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Me too.. mystifying breasts sounds like a much better story
weizilla, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3If science could explain them, then they wouldn't be mystifying... This article title is kind of redundant
loganava, on 11/10/2008, -4/+14They forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Falldog, on 11/10/2008, -2/+25"beasts that science has yet to explain"

Sorry, we scientists are too busy trying to decipher time and space while simultaneously developing the next forms of motorized travel. We're a bit occupied.
- aznpwnzor, on 11/10/2008, -0/+8you say it like you "decipher time and space while simultaneously developing the next forms of motorized travel."
Mephistocles, on 11/10/2008, -13/+8You forgot God. That crazy critter has been debated over for centuries
- Jack8274, on 11/10/2008, -7/+4That was disproved a long time ago. Only crazy people believe in fairy tales like God.
  - archer104, on 11/10/2008, -5/+4God was never disproved. You are an idiot.
  - Wrathernaut, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2According to all the things that "God's own word" (Bible) says will cause God's wrath to be wrought upon me, that I've done, with no wrath having been wrought, I would say that an omnipotent, omniscient being has been proven nonexistent, not omnipotent, or not omniscient. Any of these things should prove God a liar at best, not worthy of worship by the greatest DNA has yet to offer.
  - archer104, on 11/10/2008, -0/+51. God could mean any higher power, not just the Christian God.
    2. I think you are referring to judgment that happens after death.
    3. The God's wrath that you speak of is from the Old Testament. The old rules were replaced after the death of Jesus. Hence him dying for your sins.
    
    Note: I am not interested in defending the Bible, just arguing against hypocrisy and ignorance.
  - hooah212002, on 11/10/2008, -2/+2@archer104:
    "has never been disproven"
    *****. idiot.
- dizsid, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2Glad then, that most of the world is crazy and some of them are positively insane!! I'm not insane, but crazy?? sure!!
  
  Oh... and remember this article the next time you notice absolutely nothing seems to be going for you...
markkram, on 11/10/2008, -0/+12what about the platypus...seriously, whats with that?
- Murdats, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6its a little evolved creature back from when birds/lizards first turned into mammals so it still has aspects of birds, reptiles and mammals.
  - hooah212002, on 11/10/2008, -3/+3 o, wow. look up the definition on Evolution there buddy, then come back and re-read what you typed.
  - Murdats, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6What is your fault with my statement?
    this is a creature that has undergone very little genetic transformation over a long period of time and originates just after mammals started to become their own branch on the tree of life. a branch that originated from creatures similar to birds and reptiles.
- Rockkybox, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4From wikipedia: The bizarre appearance of this egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal baffled European naturalists when they first encountered it.
camilos007, on 11/10/2008, -7/+11He forgot Michael Jackson.
- d0nkeym0nkey, on 11/10/2008, -6/+5OMG! Michael jackson joke! *high five*
  - strictnein, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3Jackson Five!
- dizsid, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2heh heh... yeah, but Jackson is not mythical...
q1006662, on 11/10/2008, -2/+14They're not really "beasts that science has yet to explain". More like "beasts without compelling evidence with which to support their existence".
MaTT2011, on 11/10/2008, -1/+20Really? Wow. This article apparently doesn't know what science is.

Well i'll tell them what its NOT; Something to prove/explain the made up ***** that people imagine. If someone makes the claim that bigfoot/loch-ness/god is real the burden of proof is on THEM to prove it USING scientific disciplines: but its not science's job to disprove everything that pops into our imaginations. You cant prove the non-existence of a thing.
- slogged, on 11/10/2008, -2/+4Numerous eyewitness sightings is a form of evidence. Thousands of people have seen UFOs, there are hundreds of sightings of lochness... People are seeing SOMETHING, science has a responsibility to explain what it is.
  - MaTT2011, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2People seeing SOMETHING is not people seeing UFO's.
    
    Science is not some guy walking around that you can call on like he's superman to swoop in and explain every little phenomena. Its a tool to be used and everyone has access to it. Merely the act of seeing something does not put some burden on science to prove what it is; a person must first see this something, then create a thesis and set about testing it. The problem is that we have nothing to test here; you cant test what people believe they saw. We need some kind of evidence.
    
    Science has a "responsibility" only to draw logical conclusions using the evidence available and when there isn't sufficient evidence then we cease to come to a conclusion rather than inserting some placeholder like "well it must be a ufo"
    
    Its far more responsible, and virtuous, to simply say "We dont know" rather than jump to a conclusion to satisfy our primal urge to control through knowledge.
  - ithonicfury, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2Yeah, people see things like flares, floating chinese lanterns, and anything that floats and blinks, of some undetermined size, at some undetermined distance, and call it a UFO, doesn't prove that aliens are visitng.
    
    And yes, there are numerous sightings of Loch Ness, infact, id wager that anyone who travels to Loch Ness and who isnt blind has sighted Loch Ness...or do you mean the driftwood/overturned boat/toy submarine thats in there that people like to call "monster".
    
    And what's the point in even TRYING to explain the crap anyway, when you do they say, 'no, it couldnt possibly be that, you must be in on the coverup.' And if you dont then they say 'see! they're keeping quiet, its a coverup'
aznpwnzor, on 11/10/2008, -2/+3it's interesting how a lot of these are humanoid
coincidence?
- strictnein, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2No.
GuitarDood, on 11/10/2008, -1/+7Boring....I thought this was going to be something new....not "Bigfoot" and "The Lochness Monster" Booooo
dvsbright, on 11/10/2008, -2/+6seriously this is dumb.. not news and totally not worth front page
NecroSexy, on 11/10/2008, -6/+711. Digg submitters of poor taste
- xtractor, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3I see what you're going for here, but it should be "Digg submitters with good taste."
Chocolatefatkid, on 11/10/2008, -1/+301. Bigfoot / Sasquatch / Yeti
2. Loch Ness Monster (and other Lake monsters)
3. Chupacabra
4. The Jersey Devil
5. Mothman
6. Elves and Fairies
7. The Dover Demon
8. The Loveland Lizard
9. Living Dinosaurs
10. Spring-Heeled Jack
- Mujokan, on 11/10/2008, -2/+4Thanks for that. My certainty I don't need to click the link moved from 99% to 100%. :D
- diggitalism, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1all on one page- no, paragraph.
  you are a good man.
- anaclagon, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Thanks man 5 pages of ***** just to get a top ten list. WTF.
- OwdenBowden, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Yes but you forgot #11 Rosie O'Donnell
Khast, on 11/10/2008, -1/+13photoshopped images, or it didn't happen.
d0nkeym0nkey, on 11/10/2008, -3/+3I don't see ManBearPig on that list...
- Wrathernaut, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4The King of All Internets and Science fully explained ManBearPig, hence, no reason for him to be on the list.
Darmichar, on 11/10/2008, -1/+18About.com has to be one of the largest piles of crap on the internet. What a waste of bandwidth.
bobajoba, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3To this day, there is still no solid proof/evidence of Bigfoot.
UltimaXtreme, on 11/10/2008, -5/+7how in the mother ***** christ holy hell did this get dug up onto the front ***** page?

what a pile of dicks
steve693, on 11/10/2008, -1/+18Cryptozoology on the FRONT PAGE of DIGG?

***** that *****.
Backstab, on 11/10/2008, -5/+4Science can't explain them since they don't have any evidence for them, much like any god you choose to believe in..
GeezerD, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Science has explained them, but very few peoploe are aware of the term used to describe there creatures: human primate imagination.
vagrantwade, on 11/10/2008, -3/+4"Weird stuff indeed. Weird enough for Hollywood, it seems. A film production company recently announced that a movie version of The Mothman Prophecies is in the works, with Richard Gere heading the cast. It's a project sure to perpetuate the Mothman legend for many years to come."

Hey dummies, this ***** is OLDDDDDDDDDDDD
- LegomanArt, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Hey, dummy. Like, someone already pointed that ***** out.
spookyttws, on 11/10/2008, -3/+4It's called cryptozoology, aka stuff people in tin hat's actually believe exist.

And really "Weird stuff indeed. Weird enough for Hollywood, it seems. A film production company recently announced that a movie version of The Mothman Prophecies is in the works, with Richard Gere heading the cast. It's a project sure to perpetuate the Mothman legend for many years to come."?

I guess About.com likes riposting ridiculously old stories.
lolmacs, on 11/10/2008, -3/+3Did anyone else read this as "10 mystifying breasts that science has yet to explain"?
RoboCafaz, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4Jack slappin' mah Sentry!
PsychoDesigns, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtsAPw90fTU
- mjfinney, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Awesome, I love *****. This is way better than some recycled post on about.com.
DarkReign16, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6Elves and fairies?

Elves and fairies....?

Cmon.
HotDogBun, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3How is science supposed to explain these things, when there is no evidence that any of them actually exist? The only explanation is that they do not exist.
gaapgod, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5Not only is this a pointless list, but it's on 5 screens. Buried.
Akaricloud, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2I'm still a little skeptical about manbearpig
saqer, on 11/10/2008, -12/+511. The homosexual
12. The atheist
- sealhands, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5gotta hand it to you, it must take balls being so flamboyantly stupid.
  - saqer, on 11/10/2008, -7/+2i see what u did there. what time'd u say ur flight is?
  - abngal, on 11/11/2008, -1/+1 You hypocrite saqer. I deleted my comments in these thread http://digg.com/world_news/Militants_Tell_Christia ... because you imply I am misleading people that Koran is violent against atheist. I was quoting some lines from Koran about Allah's commands to kill atheists. I deleted it because you said it is a bad [fundamentalist] interpretation of taking verses out of context. You also have comments that dislikes generalizations/bad jokes about islam.
    You do not want to be generalized as a muslim and and you do not want other people interpreting the koran for you.
    As a hypocrite however, you nevertheless imply that homosexuals and atheists are "beasts yet to explain" .
    I learned to not argue anymore on a never-ending topic and to not post might-be-sensitive-comments. Now, saqer, please learn not to post stupid and useless comments. You are a disgrace to your religion if you continue that.
Resiliency, on 11/10/2008, -2/+1the scat man.
chadillak, on 11/10/2008, -4/+511. your mom.
Branchex, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3It appears this article is a ripoff, if you enter the tittle into Google you will find the same article posted on other sites with earlier dates then the About version.

Maybe I'm wrong and their is a good reason for this, but if I am right somebody plagiarized.
- mjfinney, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2A lot of about.com articles are copied from other sites. Usually they give credit. Personally I think thats pretty lame.
jplkeekif, on 11/10/2008, -4/+2damn, am I the only one that read the title as "10 Mystifying Breasts"?
ivanwave, on 11/10/2008, -1/+7"A film production company recently announced that a movie version of The Mothman Prophecies is in the works, with Richard Gere heading the cast. It's a project sure to perpetuate the Mothman legend for many years to come."

...Either this article is pretty dated or the author needs to stop using geocities as a reference
dwninjungleland, on 11/10/2008, -5/+3Did anyone else read 'breasts'?
Skooma714, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3No Crumple-Horned Snorkacks?
- dizsid, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1***** person, thats a fictitious creature written about in a story about a fictitious character in a pseudo realistic world!!!
  - Skooma714, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Like Bigfoot is any more real?
pwnstar182, on 11/10/2008, -1/+7Why aren't women on this list?
- budgeysmuggler, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3guess they didn't think anyone on digg would read it
- OfficialJoe, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2What is this "women" you speak of?
  - anaclagon, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1I think their like Ent-wives but with blond hair and vag'es.
- degreesplatinum, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2There are no black people here too. The list is sexist and racist!
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

10 mystifying beasts that science has yet to explain

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in Pets & Animals

We call ourselves "Three of a Kind"!thumb

4 dogs vs. 1 desperate coyote (intense photos)thumb

Buddy System [PIC]thumb

Login or register to add a comment

10 mystifying beasts that science has yet to explain

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in Pets & Animals

We call ourselves "Three of a Kind"!thumb

4 dogs vs. 1 desperate coyote (intense photos)thumb

Buddy System [PIC]thumb

Related by Keyword

Game Developer Confronts iPhone Software Cracker

The Most Easy to Miss Deadliest Creatures [PICS] thumb

Beware: Birds attacking

Login or register to add a comment