Creationists Argue Nessie Exists

sphenisc said:
Well there's all those dictionaries that would have to expunge the word "lake", the books that would have to be reprinted, that ballet would need to be renamed too. And Emerson and Palmer's mate. No, I think keeping the word "lake" might be a good idea.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that we needed to change every instance of lake to loch? You're gonna put your back out twisting things like that.

I'm simply asking for those that are already called a Loch to remain so and for people to respect this convention.
 
sphenisc said:
[ Most buses I've been on have "No Smoking" signs. It wasn't until I moved to Dundee that a saw one with a "No spitting" sign. ]
Click to expand...

You have an issue with the fact that Dundee bus companies don't allow people to spit on their buses whilst others make no provision for not doing it? You denigrate Dundee for having the foresight to attempt to cut out a vile habit?

Why do you want to spit on a bus?
 
bluesjnr said:
Where did I say that we needed to change every instance of lake to loch? You're gonna put your back out twisting things like that.

I'm simply asking for those that are already called a Loch to remain so and for people to respect this convention.
Click to expand...

"just"
 
bluesjnr said:
You have an issue with the fact that Dundee bus companies don't allow people to spit on their buses whilst others make no provision for not doing it? You denigrate Dundee for having the foresight to attempt to cut out a vile habit?

Why do you want to spit on a bus?
Click to expand...

Hell, I long for the day they put up "No pissing" signs.
 
I've seen 'No Spitting' signs on buses, but only in Glasgow Transport Museum. I thought it died out with chewing tobacco.

Maybe Dundee city corporation over-ordered No Spitting signs in about 1930 and were too thrifty to bear to throw them away.
 
Architect said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's made it to Pharyngula.

Pharyngula said:
It’s true. A bunch of people in kilts who wash down their sheep’s stomachs with Irn-Bru while listening to caterwauling bagpipes are giggling at those stupid Americans. It’s embarrassing. The Scotland edition of the Herald is mocking the American educational system.

The textbooks in the series are alleged to teach young earth creationism; are hostile towards other religions and other sectors of Christianity, including Roman Catholicism; and present a biased version of history that is often factually incorrect.

One ACE textbook – Biology 1099, Accelerated Christian Education Inc – reads: "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

Another claim taught is that a Japanese whaling boat once caught a dinosaur. It’s unclear if the movie Godzilla was the inspiration for this lesson.
Click to expand...
The situation is pretty bad when the Scots are looking at you like you’re mad and saying, “You don’t really believe in the Loch Ness monster, do you?”
Click to expand...
 
EHocking said:
The Russians call a lake an Озеро.
The Scots call a lake a loch.
The English call a lake a lake. None is more "correct".

It may be named Loch Ness, but nevertheless, it's a lake.

Get over it.[1]
ETA : [1] oops - obviously not directed at you Puppycow.
Click to expand...

Or a mere. (And there are a few more words as well - very rich language this English be.)
 
Dave Rogers said:
Just out of interest, how do you pronounce Lake Baikal?

Dave
Click to expand...

What a strange question? What are you testing for here? How I pronounce lake or Baikal? (which would be irrelevant)

L'see,......... Lake as in lake and I suppose Baikal would sound like "bikel".

Now, what have I proved or disproved?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Getting back to the topic, however briefly...

...this whole idea of disproving evolution by argumentum ad nessium is in itself a classic example of "not even wrong". I've never noticed where exactly it's a fundamental tenet of Darwin's theory of evolution that dinosaurs cannot co-exist with modern species. And, looking out of the window, I see a bird fly by...
Click to expand...

It's a very good point. Evolution does not claim that people and plesiosaurs cannot co-exist. It's evidence that says they died out millions of years before humans came along, not the theory of evolution. So it wouldn't matter if Nessie were real, nor even if you found a real life Jurassic Park on some remote island.

It would be cool, though.
 
bluesjnr said:
What a strange question? What are you testing for here? How I pronounce lake or Baikal? (which would be irrelevant)

L'see,......... Lake as in lake and I suppose Baikal would sound like "bikel".

Now, what have I proved or disproved?
Click to expand...

You've proved that it's acceptable to translate the word for "lake" into the language in which you're speaking at the time you refer to the body of water in question. Except that, for some reason, it's not allowed to translate from Gaelic into English.

And this isn't entirely a frivolous point. I can understand why Scotland, a separate nation to England in many respects but not in others, would want to preserve its own language, customs and nomenclatures; it prevents people from automatically seeing Scotland as a subset of England, which it is not. However, if the English are required exclusively to use Gaelic words to describe Scottish geography when speaking English, then words like "loch" become seen as themselves a subset of the English language, reinforcing the erroneous view that Scotland itself is a subset of England.

I have no issue with referring to Loch Ness as, well, Loch Ness; that's its proper name. But I think it's counterproductive to the preservation of Scottish language and culture as distinct from English language and culture to forbid it to be described, when discussing its nature rather than stating its proper name, by the English word "lake", to whose definition it quite clearly conforms.

Would it be equally insulting to describe Loch Fyne as an inlet? If so, how would one draw the distinction between Loch Ness and Loch Fyne while using the English language? And if not, consider why not.

Dave
 
Darat said:
Or a mere. (And there are a few more words as well - very rich language this English be.)
Click to expand...

fun fact, there is officially only one lake in the lake district in the UK, namely Bassenthwaite Lake. The rest are meres (like Windemere), tarns (like Angle Tarn), or waters (like Derwent Water)
 
Lamuella said:
fun fact, there is officially only one lake in the lake district in the UK, namely Bassenthwaite Lake. The rest are meres (like Windemere), tarns (like Angle Tarn), or waters (like Derwent Water)
Click to expand...

Hence why it's not "The Lakes District".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom