Creationists Argue Nessie Exists

[ponderingturtle]

The Russians call a lake an .
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.

For purposes of clarity and the language of the forum we should use only the Russian term.

 

[commandlinegamer]

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.

I grew up with "No spitting" signs on buses, common throughout west central Scotland. I'm getting on one shortly, so I'll see if there's a sign to take a picture of.

 

[bluesjnr]

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.

When I say Loch I'm speaking English with a Scots tongue. I, like the majority of my compatriots, don't speak Gaelic. It's the same when I say the word "ballet", I'm not talking French and when I utter "spaghetti" I'm not speaking Italian.

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.

There's a wee bit more to it than that, It's not all about England you know!

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.

This assumes that all Scots are talking Gaelic. Loch is part of the English language - end of story. It's no big ask to call our lochs just that... lochs.

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.

Us Scots have a hard job preserving our native language, figures published in Scotland's Census 2001 - Gaelic Report show that, in 2001, over 92,000 people in Scotland (just under 2 per cent of the population) had some Gaelic language ability and that almost half of these people lived in Eilean Siar, Highland or Argyll & Bute. I'm not sure you're familiar with my country.

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?

Loch Fyne is a sea loch and Loch Ness is a fresh water loch. there I've done it, in English.

 

[Rolfe]

I would no more describe Loch Ness as a lake, than I would describe Windermere as a loch. It's just the way it is. You wouldn't expect me to go round England calling every sizeable body of fresh water a loch, would you? And I don't.

So why not reciprocate?

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Us Scots have a hard job preserving our native language, figures published in Scotland's Census 2001 - Gaelic Report show that, in 2001, over 92,000 people in Scotland (just under 2 per cent of the population) had some Gaelic language ability and that almost half of these people lived in Eilean Siar, Highland or Argyll & Bute. I'm not sure you're familiar with my country.

...snip..

Just a point you don't have one - Scottish Gaelic is not the native language of all of Scotland it is a native language... And anyway by no stretch of the imagination can Gaelic be considered native to Scotland - it was brought over by a bunch of immigrants just a mere ( ) 14 centuries or so ago... It's all Irish!

 

[Duffy Moon]

Loch Ness is a lake, and Loch Fyne is a Fjord?

Yummy seafood at the Loch Fyne Oyster Bar, check it out if you're ever up that way.


And tasty plesiosaur steaks are served all around Loch Ness.

(I may have made that last bit up.)

 

[Quinn]

YEC is the cancer that is killing the entire faith.

Let's hope so.

 

[Darat]

I would no more describe Loch Ness as a lake, than I would describe Windermere as a loch. It's just the way it is. You wouldn't expect me to go round England calling every sizeable body of fresh water a loch, would you? And I don't.

So why not reciprocate?

Rolfe.

What's it got to do with what you would say in England?

 

[Tricky]

Loch Fyne is a sea loch and Loch Ness is a fresh water loch. there I've done it, in English.

How can you tell whether something is a "sea loch" or a bay?

 

[Rolfe]

If you have to check the shore for seaweed before you're sure whether or not it's attached to the sea somewhere, it's a sea loch.

Rolfe.

 

[Tricky]

If you have to check the shore for seaweed before you're sure whether or not it's attached to the sea somewhere, it's a sea loch.

Rolfe.

Sounds to me like a bay or estuary. Maybe a fijord.

Or perhaps the literal translation of "loch" should be, "A place to catch fish".

 

[malicus]

I grew up with "No spitting" signs on buses, common throughout west central Scotland. I'm getting on one shortly, so I'll see if there's a sign to take a picture of.

Used to play 5s in a sports centre in Yoker, Glasgow. Always remember the sign in the changing room:

"Please do not spit on the walls as it increases the risk of transmitting TB"

Pro tip right there.

 

[malicus]

How can you tell whether something is a "sea loch" or a bay?

I always assumed it was the shape.

 

[Rolfe]

A sea loch is the same thing the Norwegians call a fjord, yes.

Rolfe.

 

[xtifr]

A loch that's a lake is a lake and a loch. Claiming that one has to prefer one word over the other is as silly as if I were to insist that everyone use the adverb "hella" when referring to things from the San Francisco Bay Area. Where, in fact, we have our own Loch Lomond, which everyone calls a lake except when they call it a loch. It's hella nice. Right on the edge of Redwood country--those trees are hella big. If you try to claim that they are "very big" or "extremely large", I shall taunt you a second time.

Back on topic--the people behind these books are hella lame! They should be loched up!

 

[AvalonXQ]

I've always thought the intersection of creationists and cryptozoologists was interesting.

It is, after all, an example of creationists actually seeking out evidence for their beliefs, as the existence of macrofauna matching Mesozoic fossils would bolster their beliefs in a young Earth and dinosaur / human coexistence.

I've been most fascinated by the mkole-mbembe expeditions (and disappointed by how often they've failed to even make it there).

 

[Tricky]

I've always thought the intersection of creationists and cryptozoologists was interesting.

It is, after all, an example of creationists actually seeking out evidence for their beliefs, as the existence of macrofauna matching Mesozoic fossils would bolster their beliefs in a young Earth and dinosaur / human

Except it wouldn't really. There are quite a number of species which have survived, more-or-less unchanged since the Mesozoic and even long before, such as the Horseshoe Crab. All it would mean is that there are some extant species we haven't yet found. Heck, we only found actual giant squids a few years ago, though we had lots of evidence that they were still around. Not so much for Nessie.

 

[Warrior1461]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...-debunk-evolution-state-funded-190816504.html

Now this story has reached yahoo...if we did find a living dinosaur, this would not mean the young earth nonsense is real. Just that the evolutionary timelines get tweaked based on the new evidence. This thinking shows that their understanding on what science is and how it works is flawed. Theories are based on researched evidence, if new evidence is discovered the theory changes. Look at planets...we used to think that maybe all other solar systems have near circular orbits like ours. Now we are finding out that our type of solar system is rare. Did the discovery of Hot Jupiters cause science to collapse, NO.

Creationism is DOGMA, dogma does not change because that would be heresy, because their texts are supposed to be infallible and absolute, any new information is rejected because it is SATAN deceiving them.

I will give them credit at least they now admit dinos exist, not bones put in the ground by God to test their faith.

They do not keep up in scientific discoveries because they do not want to. Their God exists between the margins of science and they need to keep those margins wide.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Now this story has reached yahoo...if we did find a living dinosaur, this would not mean the young earth nonsense is real. Just that the evolutionary timelines get tweaked based on the new evidence.

Creationists are rightly critical of this attitude -- that whatever evidence is found, the theory of evolution will be maintained but will be adapted to accomodate it.

How is it a scientific theory, then, if any evidence can be made to fit into it? How is it predictive or falsifiable?

I have the same criticism of creationists who respond immediately to any piece of evidence for evolution that I bring up with, "God could have designed it that way".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Creationists are rightly critical of this attitude -- that whatever evidence is found, the theory of evolution will be maintained but will be adapted to accomodate it.

Well, to be fair, the discovery of an ancient survivor like the coelacanth doesn't contradict the theory of evolution any more than, say, finding a remote island occupied by nonogenarian Japanese troops would contradict the result of WWII.

If an animal's favoured habitat has shrunk to a tiny pocket then it may just be fortunate enough to cling on, or it may not. If its habitat, like the coelacanth's, is one where we humans just never venture, then it might even be flourishing unobserved.

No coelacanths in Loch Ness, though. Bigfoot ate 'em all.