The cryptid known as Emela-Ntouka [a Ligala word meaning “Killer of Elephants” or “Water-Elephant” should excite a Creationist’s interests, specifically because of its similarity to a creature described in Job 40:15-24, more famously refered to as Behemoth.
Hailing from the Likoula swamp region of the republic of the Congo, it also goes by the names, aseka-moke, ngamba-namae and emia-ntouka. It’s descibed as being the size of an elephant or larger, hairless, brown to gray in coloring. Heavy legs support the body from beneath. It leaves three-toed [or clawed] prints. A singular horn located on the front of its head resembles an elephant’s ivory tusk. Though it eats plants, it is known to become violent. Natives claim that they kill elephants, water buffalo and other animals with its horn weapon. A December 1954 article of Mammalia cites senior game inspector Lucien Blencou as noting that Emela-Ntouka was known to disembowel elephants and that one specimen had been killed in the Likoula swamp around 1934 [20 years prior to the article] but had not been scientifically described.
Radical explanations of this cryptid include speculation that they are relict ceratopsians like Monoclonius or Centrosaurus. Conservative explanations, like those offered by Loren Coleman, suggest that it’s an unkknown semi-aquatic rhinocerous…. WITH A TAIL LIKE A CROCODILE!
Oh, did I leave out that teensy bit of information? I suspect you know where I’m going with this.
The Bible describes a similar creature in Job called Behemoth which matches the description of Emela-Ntouka well, except for the mention of the horn. [The lack of a mention of a horn in the Biblical account doesn’t mean they are necessarily different animals or even that the biblical Behemoth did not have a horn!] Many Bibles contain marginal notes explaining that behemoth was probably a rhinocerous, water buffalo, elephant or even a hippopotamus. Unfortunately, Behemoth’s tail is described as being “like a cedar” [compare to Emela-Ntouka’s tail as being “like a crocodile”]. Now, take a look at the wimpy, rope-like tail of a water buffalo, a rhino, an elephant, even a hippo. Pathetic. Try to reconcile those cord-like things to the image of a creature with a tail like a cedar or a crocodile. You can’t.
But what about a relict dinosaur? That has possibilities. The word “dinosaur” doesn’t appear in the Bible, of course, because that word wasn’t coined until Sir Richard Owens first used it in 1842. Prior to that, folks called the creatures we now call dinosaurs by such names as monsters and dragons.
Now, it is interesting that the secluded Congo and the Bible both yield descriptive sketches of essentially the same animal. An animal that is hard not to see as anything but a dinosaur. That such a cryptid should be described in accordance with the biblical account adds credence to the YEC view that dinosaurs and man have co-existed in the past [even if man has now driven dinosaurs to the point of extinction].