Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Loch Ness Monster Is Real and so Disproves Evolution

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Pedant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    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 ?

    "... free to endorse right-wing politics"

    Oh yes, the false left-right wing dichotomy. All on the right are religious and socially conservative ... apparently. :rolleyes:

    That's not the least of the articles misconceptions and generalisations. It was obviously written by left-wing militant atheists.

    The article fails to acknowledge that the Anglican Church (the most prominent religion and state religion of the UK; meaning that the UK does not have the separation of Church and State), does not endorse creationism nor do most of its members. In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, does not believe that creationism should be thought in schools.

    While a large amount of schools in the UK are funded/run by religious organisation, the majority do not teach creationism. Not even the Catholic Church accepts creationism. It's only the fringe orthodox groups, such as Born Again Christians and other fundamentalists groups, that preach this nonsense.

    I am non-religious myself (agnostic atheist) but I think it's wrong to be so disingenuous and ad hominem; you're only stooping to the same level of those desperate fringe lunatics. I don't think that there's a risk of creationism gaining any sway in the UK or Ireland.


  • Options
    #123
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Er not exactly. We're also descended from monkeys. Basically, it goes like this.

    We are a member of the great ape family. The common ancestor of all great apes (Hominidae) was an ape. We are also a member of the ape family (Hominoidea), which also include lesser apes. The common ancestor of all of the above was an ape. Go back far enough to find the common ancestor between apes and old world monkeys, and you'll find a monkey. So yes, we are descended from monkeys, and also apes.

    This image should explain it further: http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/20/primates_tree.gif

    Aha o.k. Makes sense, in same the way the whole universe came from the instant tiny big bang !

    So further back what was our last universal common ancestor, was it a bacteria, an archea, or a eucaryota ?


  • Options
    #124
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Anyone who wants to see more on the specifics of how daft this is, check this out: (From 0:40 as there is an advert at the start)


  • Options
    #125
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Burt Lancaster wrote: »
    Aha o.k. Makes sense, in same the way the whole universe came from the instant tiny big bang !

    So further back what was our last universal common ancestor, was it a bacteria, an archea, or a eucaryota ?

    It would be very difficult to point to one single organism as being the universal common ancestor for all life. It is certain that it was a very simple form of life. We can only deduce from the fossil record, and genetic analysis that the further back in time we go, the more simple life is. Some microbial organism is the best estimate.


  • Options
    #126
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Indeed.


    Well speaking as an interested bystander(not a "hard" atheist as I find them a bit too linear/dismissive/OTT at times) can you explain why the various gospels vary on reported facts as I outlined in another thread on the resurrection? The single most important hub upon which Christianity revolves? Makes zero sense. If they can't agree on the names, numbers, geography and timeline, it's hardly convincing. Never mind other variabiities among them(the Romans never held a census as described by two of the Gospel writers. Feck all to do with interpretation nor translation either. In Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic one is still one, three is still three.

    Present the alleged contradictions with quotations from Scripture and I'll happily look to it.

    I think PDN has explained many of these on the Christianity forum. I might trawl out the post for you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Two women came to the tomb. Three women came to the tomb. Three different women came to the tomb. One woman came to the tomb.

    It was dark. It was light.

    An angel rolled away the stone. The stone had already been rolled away.

    Two men were by the stone. There was an angel sitting on the stone. There was nobody there.

    He appeared to Mary Magdelene and Mary first. He appeared to Mary Magdelene first.

    Peter went to the tomb. Peter and John went to the tomb. The disciples believed the women and went to Galilee as they had been instructed. They didn't believe her.

    And so on and so on. If you're not aware of these contradictions, you can't be much of a bible scholar. Or are we working on truthiness..?


  • Options
    #128
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pauldla wrote: »
    Two women came to the tomb. Three women came to the tomb. Three different women came to the tomb. One woman came to the tomb.

    It was dark. It was light.

    An angel rolled away the stone. The stone had already been rolled away.

    Two men were by the stone. There was an angel sitting on the stone. There was nobody there.

    He appeared to Mary Magdelene and Mary first. He appeared to Mary Magdelene first.

    Peter went to the tomb. Peter and John went to the tomb. The disciples believed the women and went to Galilee as they had been instructed. They didn't believe her.

    And so on and so on. If you're not aware of these contradictions, you can't be much of a bible scholar. Or are we working on truthiness..?

    Don't be lazy. Provide the direct quotes and references from the text. Then we can start looking at it. I shouldn't have to do this for you.


  • Options
    #129
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    philologos wrote: »
    Don't be lazy. Provide the direct quotes and references from the text. Then we can start looking at it. I shouldn't have to do this for you.

    I don't have a bible to hand, and I can't pop down to the shop to get one because I'm in China and it hasn't been on the best-seller list here since about 1860.

    But you must surely be aware of these contradictions, if you've ever read the bible. Are you sure it is actually the bible you've been reading? You've not been reading something else by mistake?


  • Options
    #130
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pauldla wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    Don't be lazy. Provide the direct quotes and references from the text. Then we can start looking at it. I shouldn't have to do this for you.

    I don't have a bible to hand, and I can't pop down to the shop to get one because I'm in China and it hasn't been on the best-seller list here since about 1860.

    But you must surely be aware of these contradictions, if you've ever read the bible. Are you sure it is actually the bible you've been reading? You've not been reading something else by mistake?
    http://www.esvbible.org - the Bible is one of the easiest texts to find online. If Wibbs or you present the text I'm more than happy to discuss it.

    You need to contribute your objections clearly if we want to discuss this. That's a reasonable expectation.


  • Options
    #131
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,370 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Anybody taking the bible as we'd for word fact would have to explain which version. In English the versions are quite different.
    http://bible.cc/ is handy for that

    They would also have to explain which of the Gospels they choose as there are more than four.
    I was just talking about the old testament. The arguments after that don't apply. The world was not created in 7 days. It doesn't have a dome over it. There are such basic things that are simply not true that makes creationism so stupid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Philologos, he presented them pretty clearly. And you know very well which conflicting bible sections he's talking about. Unless you mean to say you've never read the bits about Christ dying and then coming back. Pretty important part, I would have thought. Are you sure you're a Christian?

    There are a whole bunch of posts elsewhere that anyone could drag up to support that. You know that, because they were addressed to you then, as well. You never responded to them, either, even when they were precise referenced quotes. Is it only a valid response when you do it? Although, to be fair, when you do it your references never actually answer the question, so it would be rude to put him in the same class as you here.

    Stop looking for excuses not to address those points, and address them. Is honesty from a Christian really so rare these days?


  • Options
    #133
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    pauldla wrote: »
    Two women came to the tomb. Three women came to the tomb. Three different women came to the tomb. One woman came to the tomb.
    a quick look got these,

    http://bible.cc/matthew/28-2.htm
    http://bible.cc/mark/16-9.htm
    http://bible.cc/john/20-3.htm


  • Options
    #134
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sarky wrote: »
    Philologos, he presented them pretty clearly. And you know very well which conflicting bible sections he's talking about. Unless you mean to say you've never read the bits about Christ dying and then coming back. Pretty important part, I would have thought. Are you sure you're a Christian?

    There are a whole bunch of posts elsewhere that anyone could drag up to support that. You know that, because they were addressed to you then, as well. You never responded to them, either, even when they were precise referenced quotes. Is it only a valid response when you do it? Although, to be fair, when you do it your references never actually answer the question, so it would be rude to put him in the same class as you here.

    Stop looking for excuses not to address those points, and address them. Is honesty from a Christian really so rare these days?

    It's not an excuse. If we want to open the Bible and talk about it. Lets do it. Its not my job to find you the references or the passages that you're talking about. I need quotes because we need to examine exactly what the Bible is saying.

    That's an entirely fair and reasonable standard.

    Hopefully they'll be quoted and ready so I can pick them up after work.


  • Options
    #135
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    philologos wrote: »
    Present the alleged contradictions with quotations from Scripture and I'll happily look to it.
    I did not so long ago on another thread in AH.
    I think PDN has explained many of these on the Christianity forum. I might trawl out the post for you.
    Might be a plan. I'd love to see how that particular circle is squared, because there are a fair few contradictions going on as pauldla listed above(and there are a couple more).

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #136
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    From Nessie, to the history of apes, to bible inconsistencies. We're covering good ground in here.


  • Options
    #137
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    philologos wrote: »
    http://www.esvbible.org - the Bible is one of the easiest texts to find online. If Wibbs or you present the text I'm more than happy to discuss it.

    You need to contribute your objections clearly if we want to discuss this. That's a reasonable expectation.

    The bible is one of the easiest texts to find online, I am sure. But I sure as sheet am not going to start googling bible texts while I am in the People's Republic of China.

    And I'd doubt they'd get past the Great Firewall, anyhow.

    But no matter! I'm satisfied that even if I did produce the texts, you'd find some dodge out of it. Anybody who can claim that the bible is 'factual poetry' is capable of all sorts of mental gymnastics.


  • Options
    #138
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Eyewtiness testimony isn't always 100% shocker. Not to mention some of the things mentioned aren't contradictory at all.

    So now that we see that the OP was a ridiculous attempt to sling mud at all religious everywhere, it's a quick change of tact, to find something else to moan about to reinforce the original opinion.


  • Options
    #139
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    dlofnep wrote: »
    From Nessie, to the history of apes, to bible inconsistencies. We're covering good ground in here.
    I still wish Nessie existed , would be rather cool ... :(


  • Options
    #140
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    prinz wrote: »
    Eyewtiness testimony isn't always 100% shocker.

    Are they eye-witness testimonies? I was under the impression that the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus?


  • Options
    #141
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Are they eye-witness testimonies? I was under the impression that the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus?

    They were, but they would be based on an oral tradition and recollections of those knocking about at the time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Are they eye-witness testimonies? I was under the impression that the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus?

    Indeed. And given the sheer number of contradictions, it would make you wonder what they were at, at the Council of Nicea. Did they even read them themselves, I wonder?

    -Right, Gospels. I reckon Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Four, that's a good round number.
    -I like the Gospel of Thomas.
    -No, not him. No doubers.
    -What about the Gospel of Mary Magdelene? She was actually there...
    -What, a WOMAN? Are you out of your mind? No, four is enough, those four lads you mentioned. We'll throw in a few of those letters Paul wrote too, to fill it out. Only anoraks read the appendices. Right, opening is in twenty minutes, let's fill out the expenses and go for a pint.


  • Options
    #143
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    pauldla wrote: »
    Indeed. And given the sheer number of contradictions....

    I was at the pub last night for the match, I met a friend of mine let's say Paddy. That's my recollection of last night.

    If you ask him about his trip to the pub last night he'd tell you he was there with work colleagues first because he was...and that he met me. Now the fact that I didn't mention his work colleagues when I recollect our meeting has no bearing on whether they were there are nor, nor does it mean our two versions of the same event are contradictory.


  • Options
    #144
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    prinz wrote: »
    I was at the pub last night for the match, I met a friend of mine let's say Paddy. That's my recollection of last night


    Well yes, that is true. Can we extend that idea that nobody is infallible in such testimony to the writers and compilers of the bible?


  • Options
    #145
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    pauldla wrote: »
    Well yes, that is true. Can we extend that idea that nobody is infallible in such testimony to the writers and compilers of the bible?

    Two things, firstly if we can agree that two people can recollect the very same event with slight or even big differences even minutes later then we could assume that an oral tradition, and then written accounts decades later, some of which drew on others as sources, would also be open to different recounts of who was where at x time. That does not mean they are necessarily contradictory though. The psychology of witness testimony is an interesting field in today's world, there's no reason to believe that such things did not exist 2,000 years ago.

    As for whether the writers were infallible or not. That is debatable. Some denominations have different opinions, some say yes, some say no, some say sometimes.


  • Options
    #146
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    prinz wrote: »
    Two things, firstly if we can agree that two people can recollect the very same event with slight or even big differences even minutes later then we could assume that an oral tradition, and then written accounts decades later, some of which drew on others as sources, would also be open to different recounts of who was where at x time. That does not mean they are necessarily contradictory though. The psychology of witness testimony is an interesting field in today's world, there's no reason to believe that such things did not exist 2,000 years ago.

    As for whether the writers were infallible or not. That is debatable. Some denominations have different opinions, some say yes, some say no, some say sometimes.

    But most eye-witness testimony is not inspired and guided by God the Father, the creator of heaven and earth and all things seen and unseen, through which he reveals his plan to humanity and by which we order and shape our lives in the hope of life everlasting as our final reward.

    With the stakes so high, he could have been a bit more on the ball in this regard, don't you think?


  • Options
    #147
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    pauldla wrote: »
    With the stakes so high, he could have been a bit more on the ball in this regard, don't you think?

    Could have been perhaps... but then again it was written by humans with possible accompanying failings, 'inspired by' does not equate to dictated by...

    Anyway, back on the topic of Nessie, far more interesting and entertaining to keep it as a mystery IMO. Things like that keep a bit of wonder about the place. Real or not, the legend and what if's are the best part about it.


  • Options
    #148
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    prinz wrote: »
    Could have been perhaps... but then again it was written by humans with possible accompanying failings, 'inspired by' does not equate to dictated by...

    So does that mean that the bible isn't actually the Word of God, but is the Word Of Men Thinking About What God Probably Meant?

    An old Bill Hicks joke comes to mind!


  • Options
    #149
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    srsly78 wrote: »
    The Catholic church has no problem with evolution. Americans on the other hand...

    One of the few things that they get right


  • Options
    #150
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    pauldla wrote: »
    So does that mean that the bible isn't actually the Word of God, but is the Word Of Men Thinking About What God Probably Meant?

    It doesn't have to be entirely one or the other.
    pauldla wrote: »
    An old Bill Hicks joke comes to mind!

    So does a scene from Red Dwarf.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    prinz wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be entirely one or the other.

    It doesn't? I was under the impression that Christians are pretty sure that is is one, rather than the other. That's how it's usually marketed, anyhow.


Advertisement