• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creationists Argue Nessie Exists

Architect

Chief Punkah Wallah
Architect
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,826
Location
UK
Now I've not been able to verify this, but the Sunday Herald (a usually reliable Scottish broadsheet) carries this interesting article today:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...e-using-nessie-to-disprove-evolution.17918511

I am quite happy to believe that this is in no way representative of wider America. I am, however, more than happy to use it to reinforce my prejudicies against creationists as it seems to be right up their street.
 
How long does a dino live, if Nessie has been living there all alone without mating and reproducing?
 
Ooh, a philosophical question: which is sillier, the notion that the universe was created in a puff of smoke 6,000 years ago, or that a lake the size of Ness can support the feeding habits of a living dinosaur?
 
cleon said:
ooh, a philosophical question: Which is sillier, the notion that the universe was created in a puff of smoke 6,000 years ago, or that a lake Loch the size of Ness can support the feeding habits of a living dinosaur?
Click to expand...

ftfy.
 
Cleon said:
Loch = Gaelic for "lake," no?
Click to expand...

The name is Loch Ness. There is only one "lake" in Scotland and that is a corruption of Laigh, in that instance referring to the low-lying area adjacent. But do feel free to try and correct us Scots on the issue, what would we know about it after all.

;)
 
Architect said:
The name is Loch Ness. There is only one "lake" in Scotland and that is a corruption of Laigh, in that instance referring to the low-lying area adjacent. But do feel free to try and correct us Scots on the issue, what would we know about it after all.

;)
Click to expand...

He didn't say 'Lake Ness', he called Lock Ness a lake, which it is. Being a Scot has nothing to do with it; the word 'lake' is being used in it's English form as a descriptor of a body of water.
 
You know a topic is unworthy of debate when in just 5 posts the thread turns into an argument over the use of the word Lake.
 
I took a look at Loch Ness on Google Earth. It's a decent sized lake (21.8 sq mi) but not like lake Michigan (22,400 sq mi) or something. It could conceivably support an inbred population of some large aquatic animals but not without those animals being spotted constantly. I mean, the Loch is nestled amongst some rather pretty hills and you can easily see to the other side at most points on the Loch as far as I can tell.

I could believe a strange and exotic fish that lives only at the bottom going unproven this long but not anything that rises to the surface with any regularity.
 
Cleon said:
Ooh, a philosophical question: which is sillier, the notion that the universe was created in a puff of smoke 6,000 years ago, or that a lake the size of Ness can support the feeding habits of a living dinosaur?
Click to expand...


If you read the article, I think that's sort of their point. (I'm not going to read it again to check!) Obviously, a dinosaur couldn't have lived in the loch for millions of years. But hey, if the Earth was only created 6,000 years ago, then the Flood wasn't that long ago, and a dinosaur could have survived that long!

They're bonkers.

Rolfe.

And Architect is right, you don't call it a lake. A lake is something they have in other countries.
 
Is Nessie still a thing? Since I saw an episode of MonsterQuest a few years back claiming it had been killed by global warming, I just kind of figured it was over.
 
Rolfe said:
They're bonkers.
Click to expand...

I agree. And this is clearly the view of the journalist who wrote the article, although they're too kind to say so.

There's a similar one in today's dead tree edition regarding politics in decision making in SCOTUS too, but that's for another thread.
 
Weak Kitten said:
I took a look at Loch Ness on Google Earth. It's a decent sized lake (21.8 sq mi) but not like lake Michigan (22,400 sq mi) or something. It could conceivably support an inbred population of some large aquatic animals but not without those animals being spotted constantly. I mean, the Loch is nestled amongst some rather pretty hills and you can easily see to the other side at most points on the Loch as far as I can tell.

I could believe a strange and exotic fish that lives only at the bottom going unproven this long but not anything that rises to the surface with any regularity.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the largest thing that could actually conceivably live in Loch Ness is a Sturgeon, and even that's pushing it at a sustainable population level.
 
You're arguing over angels and pin heads. There is no compelling evidence of large marine creatures in the Loch. It just highlights the problems creationists have with evidence.

I note in passing that the mainstream churches here have no problem with evolution and teaching thereof in this country. There is no sustained push to have ID, creationism, or equivalents thereof foisted on our kids outside of a few very fundy quarters.
 
Damien Evans said:
IIRC, the largest thing that could actually conceivably live in Loch Ness is a Sturgeon, and even that's pushing it at a sustainable population level.
Click to expand...

Not only is there a sturgeon in Loch Ness but it took a famous photograph of Nessie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom