Loch Ness Monster Is Real and so Disproves Evolution

davet82

smash wrote: »

Talk about a misleading thread title.

i wanted to see nessy

Chuck Stone

Even chimps know that evolution is a fact these days FFS.

AudreyHepburn

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/25/american-fundamentalists-loch-ness-monster-is-real_n_1623533.html?utm_hp_ref=ukAren't over 90% of our schools run by religions organisations ?

Yes. And as I think we all well know none of them teach Creation as fact.

But people are entitled to believe what they want OP.

c_man

suicide_circus wrote: »

indeed. The catholic church does not take every story,proverb or fable in the bible literally unlike many of the protestant churches

Yeah, the Catholics just added a whole load of new ones to their beliefs.

Dionysius2

Psssst....for anyone who wants to see Nessie.....I can assist. Nessie is in a pond beside one of the large hotels beside the loch. Saw it there last year.
Probably thinks the Loch is too dangerous with all that's going on there.

BillyMitchel

So Nessa isn't alive? If Nessa was alive would he/she/it be housands of years? I'm very disappointed with this..

Burt Lancaster

non story

Napper Hawkins

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Nice try Captain. Nice try.

Lash up a report about creationist nutjobs in the USA and then try and link it to the catholic church and, more specifically, the patronage of schools in Ireland by various religious organisations including the catholic church.

Way to get an honest, reasonable debate going on education reform my friend. You have embiggened us all with your wisdom.

Less of your cromulence you!

Capt'n Midnight

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Nice try Captain. Nice try.

Lash up a report about creationist nutjobs in the USA and then try and link it to the catholic church and, more specifically, the patronage of schools in Ireland by various religious organisations including the catholic church.

Way to get an honest, reasonable debate going on education reform my friend. You have embiggened us all with your wisdom.

I'm amazed at what seems to be some peoples desire to be offended.

This is about bias in new schools.

There is no government investment in primary schools here. All that happens is they fund schools that have been built and run by other organisations.

I've heard of people sending their children to Gaelscoil and Protestant Schools, not because of the language or the religion but because it was perceived to be a better school. If an organisation focused on the three R's and their pupils got good grades in exams there are plenty of parents who wouldn't care too much what else they got taught.

I Heart Internet

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm amazed at what seems to be some peoples desire to be offended.

This is about bias in new schools.

There is no government investment in primary schools here. All that happens is they fund schools that have been built and run by other organisations.

I've heard of people sending their children to Gaelscoil and Protestant Schools, not because of the language or the religion but because it was perceived to be a better school. If an organisation focused on the three R's and their pupils got good grades in exams there are plenty of parents who wouldn't care too much what else they got taught.

I'm confused by your response tbh.

What exactly is your point? That parents prefer good schools? That's not news.

forfuxsake

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm confused by your response tbh.

What exactly is your point? That parents prefer good schools? That's not news.

I'm with you I heart.

Jesus loves us so much that he gave his life for our sins and those of you who don't teach this simple truth to your children are condemning them to an eternal life of burning in agony in satan's dungeons.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Not enough talk about Nessie on this thread.

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

Catholic church has no option but to have no problem with evolution. If they could still be claiming the bible is literal then they would be but its not good for business these days. Have to keep the coffer fulls an all that.

They never said the bible was literal.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm amazed at what seems to be some peoples desire to be offended.

This is about bias in new schools.

There is no government investment in primary schools here. All that happens is they fund schools that have been built and run by other organisations.

I've heard of people sending their children to Gaelscoil and Protestant Schools, not because of the language or the religion but because it was perceived to be a better school. If an organisation focused on the three R's and their pupils got good grades in exams there are plenty of parents who wouldn't care too much what else they got taught.

Sure, but we have a State curriculum unlike the US.

you know something. I am a defender of Catholic education in Ireland for one reason only - if it aint broke too bad don't try fix it and make it worse.

The anti-Catholic school angries point to secular schooling as the way forward, but the US - which is secular constitutionally and has secular schools is where we get the most of this creationist nonsense. Empirically then, secular State schooling doesn't seem to work.

nacimroc

Its time to build a big wall around these baffoons and let nothing out.

SafeSurfer

The religious right is an incredibly powerful constituency in the US. Have you ever noticed how subtle some of the attempts to legitimise bible stories through science is.

On the History channel recently there was a programme called the science behind the seven deadly plagues from the Old testament. Cue smart looking scientist in white coat describing how the plagues would have happened.

A clever but insidious way of interpreting the Old Testament as the literal truth, backed up by "scientific" fact.

Capt'n Midnight

SafeSurfer wrote: »

On the History channel recently there was a programme called the science behind the seven deadly plagues from the Old testament. Cue smart looking scientist in white coat describing how the plagues would have happened.

A clever but insidious way of interpreting the Old Testament as the literal truth, backed up by "scientific" fact.

http://www.publications.steveplatt.net/tenplagues.htm

Algal bloom and knock on effects explain most of the plagues

Hailstones , rare but it happens

Plague of Locusts , not really that rare, but lousy timing

Darkness from a sandstorm



Yes there is a lot of historical record contained in the Bible. But showing that parts of it are plausible doesn't mean all of it is. Anyway interpreting natural phenomenon as miracles doesn't prove they are miracles.

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

They never said the bible was literal.

Sure they did, they still hold onto as much as they can that can be interpreted literally. I was taught as a child the stories from the bible as facts, it all happened and it was all real no matter how absurd it was.

As it has become apparent that its all myth and nonsense it has become more vague and open to interpretation to allow the church to perpetuate this nonsense without being called out on the fact its all bullshít.

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

Sure they did, they still hold onto as much as they can that can be interpreted literally. I was taught as a child the stories from the bible as facts, it all happened and it was all real.

As it has become apparent that its all myth and nonsense it has become more vague and open to interpretation to allow the church to perpetuate this nonsense without being called out on the fact its all bullshít.

Wrong. The Catholic Church sees a lot, if not most, of the Bible as non-literal, in particular and most importantly, Genesis. It was a long a form of Protestant attacks on Catholicism that the Catholics hid the real meaning of Christianity, by not allowing the bible in the vernacular, back in the day.

Here is a link to a report called.

Catholic Bishops warn against literal interpretations of the Bible


Have a guess what thats about.

I am not a believer, by the way, but why is it that in all threads about evolution regarding the evangelists in the US in comes the angry New Atheist comes in his semi-literate group think about the Katholics. Sing a different tune. One with a bit more information.

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Wrong. The Catholic Church sees a lot, if not most, of the Bible as non-literal, in particular and most importantly, Genesis. It was a long a form of Protestant attacks on Catholicism that the Catholics hid the real meaning of Christianity, by not allowing the bible in the vernacular, back in the day.

Here is a link to a report called.

Catholic Bishops warn against literal interpretations of the Bible


Have a guess what thats about.

Ammm its about exactly what I have been talking about. The church changing how the bible is viewed to enable then to perpetuate absolute nonsense. But thanks for making my point. This piece from that article sums up my point nicely.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways ìappropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporariesî.

I am not a believer, by the way, but why is it that in all threads about evolution regarding the evangelists in the US in comes the angry New Atheist comes in his semi-literate group think about the Katholics. Sing a different tune. One with a bit more information.

I'm just talking calmly about what I was taught and what the bible is. Your the one popping a vein over it. Your either a believer claiming not to be one to try and give yourself some credibility or your the Angry "anti-atheist" coming in to defend the "Katholics" just to take a pop at an Atheist. Angry that its popular maybe and you have to find a new opinion to stand out from the "group think".

And next time read your own "counter argument" before calling someone semi-literate. lol

JuliusCaesar

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The religious right is an incredibly powerful constituency in the US.

Have you noticed the storyline in Prometheus with the 'scientist' who believes in "intelligent design" (a fancy name for creationism)? I presume that was to appeal to that constituency.




What I don't quite understand is how those Born Again Christians who emerged in the 70s-80s became so fundamentalist.... The BACs in the 80s weren't creationists.

Duggys Housemate

LordSmeg wrote: »

Ammm its about exactly what I have been talking about. The church changing how the bible is viewed to enable then to perpetuate absolute nonsense. But thanks for making my point. Too bad your little rant at the end though has backfired on ya. This piece from that article sums up my point nicely.

You think your point is made by an article where the Catholic Bishops clearly say that Genesis is not to be taken literarily proves your point. Either a religion is fundamentalists, and literalist, or it isn't. Catholicism clearly isn't.

Your either a believer claiming not to be one to try and give yourself some credibility or your the Angry "anti-atheist" coming in to defend the "Katholics" just to take a pop at an Atheist. Angry that its popular maybe and you have to find a new opinion to stand out from the "group think".

The latter, I am annoyed that a group which I belong to - not that on-belief is really a group - and one which was populated with people able to argue consistently, read books, know history; and know the difference between protestantism and catholicism has been taken over by semi-literate morons.

But this is off topic.

Sarky

creationists, lol

Scioch

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You think your point is made by an article where the Catholic Bishops clearly say that Genesis is not to be taken literarily proves your point. Either a religion is fundamentalists, and literalist, or it isn't. Catholicism clearly isn't.

Said in a teaching document from 2005. Doesnt really prove anything other than in 2005 they changed the way it was taught to allow it to exist along side evolution. Which backs up my point that they did teach it literally in the past. They must have done if they had to take steps to dissuade that in 2005.

The latter, I am annoyed that a group which I belong to - not that on-belief is really a group - and one which was populated with people able to argue consistently, read books, know history; and know the difference between protestantism and catholicism has been taken over by semi-literate morons.

But this is off topic.

As you said its not a group, your not a member of anything and your only relation to the people your talking about is that you dont believe nonsense. So whats there to be upset about ? Your argument is "I dont like stupid people" while defending the teaching of absolute horse shít.

Doesnt make much sense to me.

philologos

Surely not again! :pac:

holystungun9

kryogen wrote: »

Creationists.

Gotta love them

Or as we call them down here, cretins.

Archeron

Cant we refer to Nessie as a sea being? Sea monster sounds so accusatory.

Capt'n Midnight

Archeron wrote: »

Cant we refer to Nessie as a sea being? Sea monster sounds so accusatory.

especially for the denizen of a lake

Paco Rodriguez

If man cant find a big monster in a small lake...yet be able to find an atom...surely we are not evolving!!

squod

This lad puts it more eloquently than me. Darwinists are trying to make a monkey out of you.

We don't need religious commercials about man evolving from an ape ancestor that is based on old theories. Our children do not need to be indoctrinated by the religion of the atheist in the classroom. They should be learning factual science.

http://www.waynesvilledailyguide.com/community/blogs/designer_blog/x1208083635/The-Theory-That-Humans-Evolved-from-Apes-Is-Unproven

Making a monkey out of you is big business. It's not just a Church that's making a few bob.

Corkfeen

squod wrote: »

This lad puts it more eloquently than me. Darwinists are trying to make a monkey out of you.



http://www.waynesvilledailyguide.com/community/blogs/designer_blog/x1208083635/The-Theory-That-Humans-Evolved-from-Apes-Is-Unproven

Making a monkey out of you is big business. It's not just a Church that's making a few bob.

His entire argument seems to be hinged on Webster's dictionary definition of 'Theory'.... There is a major difference between a standard theory versus a scientific theory....

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

There is no legitimate argument against evolution or any legitimate theory that could take it's place... The numerous studies which have been done, support it as a fact. It is not simply a hypothesis as a result, as it is verifiable. But don't let us get in the way of your absurd belief that it's 'just' a theory. And Evolution is proven....