Thread: Really? The Loch Ness Fucking Monster?? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022816
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
It's rare that I'm surprised by the shitbrains of American fundamentalists, who strive at every turn to fill even the heathen children's heads with nonscientific YEC propaganda dressed up in the guise of scientific knowledge, but this is beyond the pale:
How American fundamentalists are using Nessie to disprove evolution.
REALLY? The Loch Ness monster?? THAT'S your argument that scientists don't know what they're talking about? Some hazy pictures and local folk lore about a fictional beast that sounds kinda like a dinosaur disproves evolutionary biology?
I'm so fucking tired of these brainless, dickless, friendless, loveless, soulless, dishonest, disreputable, malodorous, malevolent, pants-on-head-on-fire-insane backward toothless fucknuggets shitting up Christianity and shitting up the United States. 40 years ago we were sending humans to the moon. 40 years from now we'll be condemning the internal combustion engine as a form of sorcery. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Yes, fundies may be tiring, but do bear in mind that there seems to be a tendency among those of the opposite extreme to conflate science with a particular philosophy - something I find particularly wearisome and not very intelligent or honest.
So perhaps if certain vociferous fanatics give up associating science with atheism, you might just find a bit more moderation on the fundie front.
Just as "violence begets violence", so idiocy begets idiocy.
A bit more light and less heat, methinks.
In fact, instead of referring to certain people as "shitbrains" and "fucknuggets" (how very mature of you!), why not actually try to make some effort to understand their concerns? Or is that too much trouble for you on your self-righteous soapbox?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Welp, I'm convinced!
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, instead of referring to certain people as "shitbrains" and "fucknuggets" (how very mature of you!), why not actually try to make some effort to understand their concerns? Or is that too much trouble for you on your self-righteous soapbox?
I understand their concerns:
1) Some never developed beyond the intellectual level of an eight-year old and are incapable of grasping metaphor and symbolic thought - Genesis must be literally, factually true in every detail or else nothing in the Bible is of any use;
2) Others see any change as threatening the entire order of society - for heaven's sake, we even let women vote and wear pants!
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I'm so fucking tired of these brainless... [etc]
So dinosaurs coexisting with humans is stupid, but it’s totally reasonable to believe that a bloke who was conceived without sexual union and born to a bronze-age Middle-Eastern peasant virgin woman was in fact also God The Fuckoff Almighty (who has really sick Superpowers and made the universe and everything in it) as well as the Holy Ghost, who (it says in some tatty old manuscrips that were written a century later) mooched about a random patch of desert a couple of thousand years ago telling everyone to be nice, and variously healed the blind, cleansed leprosy, reversed paralysis, resolved perpetual menorrhagia, cured dropsy, withered hands and deafness, calmed storms and walked on water, raised the dead and turned water into wine, who promptly got executed by the local authorities, and, after being dead for three days came back to life again and thereby bought every single man woman and child who ever lived a free ticket to an eternal life of perfect bliss in heaven after we all die.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I'm so fucking tired of these brainless... [etc]
So dinosaurs coexisting with humans is stupid, but it’s totally reasonable to believe that a bloke who was conceived without sexual union and born to a bronze-age Middle-Eastern peasant virgin woman was in fact also God The Fuckoff Almighty (who has really sick Superpowers and made the universe and everything in it) as well as the Holy Ghost, who (it says in some tatty old manuscrips that were written a century later) mooched about a random patch of desert a couple of thousand years ago telling everyone to be nice, and variously healed the blind, cleansed leprosy, reversed paralysis, resolved perpetual menorrhagia, cured dropsy, withered hands and deafness, calmed storms and walked on water, raised the dead and turned water into wine, who promptly got executed by the local authorities, and, after being dead for three days came back to life again and thereby bought every single man woman and child who ever lived a free ticket to an eternal life of perfect bliss in heaven after we all die.
Thank you for proving that you're not one iota smarter than the dickless fundie retards for the first "concern" stated in my last comment.
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on
:
Yorick is a fundie, an athiest fundie.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
So dinosaurs coexisting with humans is stupid, but it’s totally reasonable to believe that a bloke who was conceived without sexual union and born to a bronze-age Middle-Eastern peasant virgin woman was in fact also God The Fuckoff Almighty (who has really sick Superpowers and made the universe and everything in it) as well as the Holy Ghost, who (it says in some tatty old manuscrips that were written a century later) mooched about a random patch of desert a couple of thousand years ago telling everyone to be nice, and variously healed the blind, cleansed leprosy, reversed paralysis, resolved perpetual menorrhagia, cured dropsy, withered hands and deafness, calmed storms and walked on water, raised the dead and turned water into wine, who promptly got executed by the local authorities, and, after being dead for three days came back to life again and thereby bought every single man woman and child who ever lived a free ticket to an eternal life of perfect bliss in heaven after we all die.
Unlike the ACE, none of us is claiming any of that stuff is scientifically verifiable.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Good point. I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek, of course, but the point is that we all have our beliefs, and that's all they are.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Oh no, that's not true. There's nothing like belief, backed up with feeling to become motivated true belief, unshakable to its core. This is why some of us are concerned when people go in for fringe ideas based on new ideas that avoid any context or tradition. The rise of fundamentalism of all kinds, Christian, Hindu, Atheist and Islamic are all problematic.
The OP may be a little excitable and over the top, but I personally enjoyed the long string of epithets in the third paragraph and will spend quite a while trying to understand some of the words.
Posted by Ann (# 94) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I'm so fucking tired of these brainless... [etc]
So dinosaurs coexisting with humans is stupid, but it’s totally reasonable to believe that a bloke who was conceived without sexual union and born to a bronze-age Middle-Eastern peasant virgin woman was in fact also God The Fuckoff Almighty (who has really sick Superpowers and made the universe and everything in it) as well as the Holy Ghost, who (it says in some tatty old manuscrips that were written a century later) mooched about a random patch of desert a couple of thousand years ago telling everyone to be nice, and variously healed the blind, cleansed leprosy, reversed paralysis, resolved perpetual menorrhagia, cured dropsy, withered hands and deafness, calmed storms and walked on water, raised the dead and turned water into wine, who promptly got executed by the local authorities, and, after being dead for three days came back to life again and thereby bought every single man woman and child who ever lived a free ticket to an eternal life of perfect bliss in heaven after we all die.
Of course we don't believe that - we're not stupid. She was an iron age peasant ...
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
we all have our beliefs, and that's all they are.
But this is an actual monster in an actual loch in actual Scotland! All it needs is a boatload of true believers prayerfully letting down their nets, and the scaly, writhing refutation of all those godless scientists (of whom marine palaeontologists are the worst) will appear.
Of course, it will be costly. But what are a few hundred thousand dollars compared to the vindication of the truth! Give generously!
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
The problem with fundamentalists is that they really do not get scientific theory, and the idea of testing a working hypothesis against empirical evidence. They confuse that with their own eisegenic way of engaging Scripture.
And that in turn is, I think, an indictment of the sorry state of science education in our country, hampered as it is by a combination of underfunding, inadequately trained/interested teachers and ideological/political meddling in public education.
[ 26. June 2012, 20:02: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
Yeah, whatever so-called YEC "scientists" practice, it ain't science. They begin by stating their conclusion as fact, and selectively choose "evidence" that seems to support it.
And the utter misunderstanding of the term "theory" would be ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
if it wasn't so ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
I actually enjoyed the OP, and have a certain sympathy with Mockingale's concerns, but I can't be the only old Shippie who sees Mockingale's avatar and has flashbacks...
Now you young-uns run along and play while Grandpa sits over here in the sun and snoozes...
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Yeah, whatever so-called YEC "scientists" practice, it ain't science. They begin by stating their conclusion as fact, and selectively choose "evidence" that seems to support it.
And the utter misunderstanding of the term "theory" would be if it wasn't so .
It would all be amusing in a sort of pathetic way if there weren't state and local governments that repeatedly try to force this bullshit on kids at public schools. The fundamentalists have political influence far beyond their numbers and if it were up to them, we'd be in the dark ages.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Don't feel so bad, if they find out that Nessie likes mates of her/his same sex, that will refute their attitude against homosexuality.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
Oh, that we could just give the fundamentalists an island somewhere with plenty of food and water and see where they get themselves after 50 years of pure godly ignorance. I bet they'll be burning witches and attempting to cure common maladies with leeches and tinctures of nightshade.
Better them than us.
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
we all have our beliefs, and that's all they are.
But this is an actual monster in an actual loch in actual Scotland! All it needs is a boatload of true believers prayerfully letting down their nets, and the scaly, writhing refutation of all those godless scientists (of whom marine palaeontologists are the worst) will appear.
Of course, it will be costly. But what are a few hundred thousand dollars compared to the vindication of the truth! Give generously!
But don't you know? Tom Baker killed Nessie back in '75! I thought everybody knew that!
[ 26. June 2012, 20:49: Message edited by: AristonAstuanax ]
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
You know when I first read your idea of an island, my first thought was England (even if it is wagging it's Scottish tail). ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
You know when I first read your idea of an island, my first thought was England (even if it is wagging it's Scottish tail).
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks! England, you are now our Australia. xoxo North America
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I actually enjoyed the OP, and have a certain sympathy with Mockingale's concerns, but I can't be the only old Shippie who sees Mockingale's avatar and has flashbacks...
Now you young-uns run along and play while Grandpa sits over here in the sun and snoozes...
No, you're not the only one! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
But don't you know? Tom Baker killed Nessie back in '75! I thought everybody knew that!
He fucking WHAT???!
Uncool!
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
It's ok, it was only a flesh wound.
[The synopsis decribes Nessie going back to the Loch]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
OK, I was hoping to use this thread to have a nice long sneer at the Americans, and then I discovered this, from TES.
quote:
Exams for an Evangelical Christian curriculum in which pupils have been taught that the Loch Ness monster disproves evolution and racial segregation is beneficial have been ruled equivalent to international A- levels by a UK government agency.
The National Recognition Information Centre (Naric), which guides universities and employers on the validity of different qualifications, has judged the International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE) officially comparable to qualifications offered by the Cambridge International exam board.
[ 26. June 2012, 23:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
The fundamentalists have political influence far beyond their numbers and if it were up to them, we'd be in the dark ages.
It's stuff like this that makes me sooo glad all my American forebears skedaddled north in the revolution. (Not that I'd be around to care if they hadn't.)
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Might as well set the record straight. A very decent Métís man told me a decade ago how he was spring hunting ducks on Great Slave Lake in the NWT. He said he saw a family of ducks, mother and a half dozen babies. A 'log' rose up out of the water and swallowed up mother duck and most of the babies in one gulp. Then dove. He estimated the length as about 20 feet, with width about 15 inches. We call the fish that was this 'log' a jack in many parts of Canada. You may know it as a northern pike.
I submit that Nessie, if ever existed, is either a jack or was developed from a story of big old jackfish.
As for your fundamentalists, they may be invited to swim with these fresh water sharks. If the water temperature doesn't take them first.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks! England, you are now our Australia. xoxo North America
Not sure about this - I thought we populated Australia with our criminals - we sent the (worst of our) religious fruitcakes across the pond - where some of them appear to have flourished.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Don't feel so bad, if they find out that Nessie likes mates of her/his same sex, that will refute their attitude against homosexuality.
The thread title claims Nessie is a fucking monster so she must be mating with something. .
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, I was hoping to use this thread to have a nice long sneer at the Americans, and then I discovered this, from TES.
No matter the pond or border crossed, we all have our share of nutters.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I completely fail to see how, even if the existence of the Loch Ness Monster was proved, it would have ANYTHING to say about evolution vs creationism that isn't already said by other animals that can be spotted much more easily.
I mean, is anyone really stupid enough to think there's something magic about the word 'dinosaur'? There are plenty of other creatures around that are said to have been around at the same time as the dinosaurs. What the hell is the difference between dinosaur-era creatures co-existing with us and actual dinosaurs co-existing with us?
Or plesiosaurs, to be strictly correct.
[ 27. June 2012, 02:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
You are expecting reason and sound logic from such as these? Beginning to question your sanity, then.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I know, I know. I'm just thinking of the poor Louisiana school children who could be learning about spiders (for example) as proof of YEC instead of Nessie. It would be so much easier to believe in YEC if you had the proof right there in your neighbourhood, instead of relying on fuzzy photographs from thousands of miles away.
[ 27. June 2012, 05:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Might as well set the record straight. A very decent Métís man told me a decade ago how he was spring hunting ducks on Great Slave Lake in the NWT. He said he saw a family of ducks, mother and a half dozen babies. A 'log' rose up out of the water and swallowed up mother duck and most of the babies in one gulp. Then dove. He estimated the length as about 20 feet, with width about 15 inches. We call the fish that was this 'log' a jack in many parts of Canada. You may know it as a northern pike.
I think you might mean a Muskellunge, they grow bigger. There is a theory it might also have been some form of large eel,
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
An uncommon North American fish doesn't strike me as that much more likely a candidate for Nessie than a plesiosaur. You could at least be trying for an uncommon European fish.
Then again, I suppose someone letting loose a pair of muskellunge in Loch Ness circa 1802 might have done the trick...
The jack/northern pike, on the other hand, is indeed native to Britain as well as North America.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I think we have already established upthread that dinosaurs became extinct because they were gay. Apart from velociraptors, who turned into bluetits. It was while King James was fishing on the banks of Loch Ness that he saw something that caused him to insist the translators of his bible put in references to Leviathan (since he didn't know the word 'dinosaur' - this being before evil science was invented). He also wrote a book about witches, or, as we know them, feminists.
I donate the above paragraph to the educators of Louisiana. It seems to me to meet, if not exceed, their requirements for coherence and accuracy.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I had a conversation with the Monster of Loch Ness last year, and she confirmed to me that she recently converted to Orthodoxism.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, I was hoping to use this thread to have a nice long sneer at the Americans, and then I discovered this, from TES.
No matter the pond or border crossed, we all have our share of nutters.
I know we've got nutters. I didn't know our government endorsed them.
(At least, not that sort of nutter. Our government usually endorses a better class of nutter, like the House of Saud, who are actual royalty.)
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I love you, Firenze.
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on
:
Now, y'all just calm down here, right now.
Any parts of the Bible that strike you as not quite reasonable are clearly the work of a later redactor, writing in metaphoric teaching mode to present a specific point of view, which may well not apply to current times.
Try reading that way; it is amazingly comforting.
Oh, Yorick will still burn, but for the rest of you, it's all good if you will just read the Bible properly.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
In A Walk In The Woods Bill Bryson, commenting on the proposed (at the time) law in Tennessee to outlaw the teaching of evolution, says:
quote:
The problem for Tennesseeans is not that they are descended from apes, but that they may soon be overtaken by them.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Surely the fact that otters can do synchronised swimming and therefore look like a lake monster is proof of Intelligent Design?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
<snip> Apart from velociraptors, who turned into bluetits. <snip>
I donate the above paragraph to the educators of Louisiana. It seems to me to meet, if not exceed, their requirements for coherence and accuracy.
They won't like that bit. The YECcies I worked with really really didn't like the implication that dinosaurs had evolved into birds, y'see it's basically saying evolution exists. The dinosaurs, they're the monsters in the Bible that have all died out y'know.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The YECcies I worked with really really didn't like the implication that dinosaurs had evolved into birds, y'see it's basically saying evolution exists. The dinosaurs, they're the monsters in the Bible that have all died out y'know.
They would say that, wouldn't they? Just wait til the bluetits work out how to operate the door handles...
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
I think Liopleurodon can give us the straight goods on Nessie. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
OliviaG
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
]I think you might mean a Muskellunge, they grow bigger. There is a theory it might also have been some form of large eel,
This could probably morph into a circus thread. How about a mutant jack-muskie-pleisosaur cross dumped into the lake by Eric the Red on one of his viking visitations to the area? The vikings being well know to engage in genetic engineering 1000+ years ago. It is just as plausible as the OP's fundie complaint.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
The problem with this argument is not that Dinosaurs (or animals around at the time of dinosaurs) are still one earth. There are plenty of such species known to science (popular science tends to call them living fossils, without having to go into the dubious like nessie. Why use nessie when your local friendly alligator would do? However given that these exist and recognised as such by science why do they think that is a problem for evolution, if something no longer needs to evolve it probably won't.
Jengie
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
we all have our beliefs, and that's all they are.
But this is an actual monster in an actual loch in actual Scotland! All it needs is a boatload of true believers prayerfully letting down their nets, and the scaly, writhing refutation of all those godless scientists (of whom marine palaeontologists are the worst) will appear.
Of course, it will be costly. But what are a few hundred thousand dollars compared to the vindication of the truth! Give generously!
But don't you know? Tom Baker killed Nessie back in '75! I thought everybody knew that!
No, he didn't! He threw Broton's homing device at the Skaresen, which promptly swallowed it, thus releasing it from Zygon control; the Doctor speculated that it would then return to Loch Ness as this was the only home it had know for so many centuries.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
]I think you might mean a Muskellunge, they grow bigger. There is a theory it might also have been some form of large eel,
This could probably morph into a circus thread. How about a mutant jack-muskie-pleisosaur cross dumped into the lake by Eric the Red on one of his viking visitations to the area? The vikings being well know to engage in genetic engineering 1000+ years ago. It is just as plausible as the OP's fundie complaint.
Personally, I favour the fermenting pine log theory, with a side order of misidentified seals, seiches and sporadic hoaxing - the lake itself just doesn't have enough food in for anything really large anyway. There was a theory there may be a hidden way out to the sea, but no one has been able to verify that.
[ETA My reference to Muskellunge was because when I read the wiki on the northern pike, it said it was muskellunge that were known as jack fish.]
[ 27. June 2012, 18:17: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, he didn't! He threw Broton's homing device at the Skaresen, which promptly swallowed it, thus releasing it from Zygon control; the Doctor speculated that it would then return to Loch Ness as this was the only home it had know for so many centuries.
Isn't that a relief. You just don't knock off a crypto-biological treasure, I don't care if you are a Timelord.
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The YECcies I worked with really really didn't like the implication that dinosaurs had evolved into birds, y'see it's basically saying evolution exists. The dinosaurs, they're the monsters in the Bible that have all died out y'know.
They would say that, wouldn't they? Just wait til the bluetits work out how to operate the door handles...
That is about the most delightful image my addled brain has been offered in days. I am annoying people in the comp lab with my giggling.
[ 27. June 2012, 19:27: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on
:
Ahem. I THINK you'll find that Nessie was a monster that terrorised Inverness and the surrounding area for many years until Columba came to visit the Pictish king. Columba banished the monster in the name of the Lord, telling it to **** off into the loch. That's why no-one's ever seen it properly.
Dr Who.... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
And we couldn't put her in a zoo? No excuse.
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on
:
Srsly. We could swap her for some more pandas.
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I think we have already established upthread that dinosaurs became extinct because they were gay. Apart from velociraptors, who turned into bluetits. It was while King James was fishing on the banks of Loch Ness that he saw something that caused him to insist the translators of his bible put in references to Leviathan (since he didn't know the word 'dinosaur' - this being before evil science was invented). He also wrote a book about witches, or, as we know them, feminists.
A Naturalist who’d been studying bluetits for more than twenty years, marvelling at their joyful (they twitted a lot) and harmonious relationships in life-long monogamy – was shocked to discover, with the advent of genetic testing, that none of the progeny of any of the couples in his study were Dad’s! These caring, demure faithful females were nothing but a bunch of brazen hussies – having it off with any layabout tit who happened on the scene when Dad weren't lookin'.
This has clear implications for bluetits,
And velociraptors
And evolution
And God
And Atheists
…
I’m just not sure what
S-E
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Christians indoctrinating school kids with scientific falsehoods .... Disgraceful !
What with that, and the secular masses telling kids that a beardie weirdie goes around once a year delivering pressies to children all over the world in a single night.
Where will it all end ?
[ 27. June 2012, 22:22: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
[ETA My reference to Muskellunge was because when I read the wiki on the northern pike, it said it was muskellunge that were known as jack fish.]
That's Ontario. Jacks are pike. Jacks are definitely not muskelunge (one L here). And if they show up here, we probably would also call them jacks because we really don't get them in the west and north and they look like jacks. I've only ever seen one actually.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
They are muskies, properly muskellunge (two L's, please). Pike and Muskies are similar predators so where you will find one, you won't find the other.
Southern Ontario is muskie territory, pike are not welcome here, the Ministry of Natural Resources is on the lookout.
Nobody here calls a muskie a jack. Silly Westerners.
Or it could just be a stupid carp. They were introduced here by some British twit who though thought those garbage fish were sport.
Around here we see British fisherman who have booked an "expedition" to fish for carp. The locals giggle and the tour guide counts the fees from another idiot he has just fleeced.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
How to make this thread die, now that it's become a detailed examination of the ecological niche filled by members of Esocidae...
Oh wait, I know.
DINNER DANCE ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Go make love to a kangaroo.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
{Puts in emergency call to PETA about pretty much the entire thread.}
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Go make love to a kangaroo.
I suddenly have a quite different perspective on the use of the F-word in the thread title.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Yeah, I'd watch your arse in the Great Glen...
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yeah, I'd watch your arse in the Great Glen...
Promises, promises...
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I don't think I look remotely like a dinosaur.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
Here we go - I knew Bill Hicks's comments on this would be around...
Bill Hicks on dinosaurs and Texan fundamentalists
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
My hero.
"I think God sent you here to test my faith."
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
They are muskies, properly muskellunge (two L's, please). Pike and Muskies are similar predators so where you will find one, you won't find the other.
How to explain the tiger muskie , a hybrid of northern and muskie, then? We see them relatively often hereabouts.
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
They are muskies, properly muskellunge (two L's, please). Pike and Muskies are similar predators so where you will find one, you won't find the other.
How to explain the tiger muskie , a hybrid of northern and muskie, then? We see them relatively often hereabouts.
Not to get too far off topic, but tiger muskies are usually an introduced, sterile species. They'll take out some of your smaller prey fish, restoring a certain ecological balance, provide some fun for your fishermen, and, after a certain amount of time, die. They also have a tolerance for warm water that neither Esox lucius or Esox masquinongy (I think I spelled those correctly) have, meaning that they can be introduced in places people don't know what pike are.
Quite useful for fisheries management, no?
(This is what I get for having an ichthyologist best friend)
Oh, and I apologize for getting the end of Terror wrong. I own up to it now, before I get the well-earned Hell call I deserve for messing up a classic Who plot point.
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
They are muskies, properly muskellunge (two L's, please). Pike and Muskies are similar predators so where you will find one, you won't find the other.
How to explain the tiger muskie , a hybrid of northern and muskie, then? We see them relatively often hereabouts.
Not to get too far off topic, but tiger muskies are usually an introduced, sterile species. They'll take out some of your smaller prey fish, restoring a certain ecological balance, provide some fun for your fishermen, and, after a certain amount of time, die. They also have a tolerance for warm water that neither Esox lucius or Esox masquinongy (I think I spelled those correctly) have, meaning that they can be introduced in places people don't know what pike are.
Quite useful for fisheries management, no?
(This is what I get for having an ichthyologist best friend)
Oh, and I apologize for getting the end of Terror wrong. I own up to it now, before I get the well-earned Hell call I deserve for messing up a classic Who plot point.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
This may be the best thread posted on any board, ever. Cryptozoology, vintage Who, Bill Hicks, ichthyology, bird sex-- Jesus, throw in something about the common sowbug and I might just have an orgasm.
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on
:
Well Kelly, just to make your night, let's talk about isopods, everyone's favorite terrestrial crustacean. I bet you like lifting up old, neglected flowerpots just for that visceral thrill of finding creepy-crawlies to roam all over you for your depraved purposes, don't you? They don't even roll up and stay still—no, they'll march on when you poke them in just that right way, won't they?
You naughty girl. You like your men to moonlight in entomology, don't you?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
... everyone's favorite terrestrial crustacean.
EXACTLY. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
(Oh and yes, I love a bug man, Who doesn't?)
[ 29. June 2012, 06:06: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This may be the best thread posted on any board, ever. Cryptozoology, vintage Who, Bill Hicks, ichthyology, bird sex-- Jesus, throw in something about the common sowbug and I might just have an orgasm.
Introducing the Cryptid Zoo: A Menagerie of Cryptozoology!
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
If you like Cryptids, have you tried reading this?
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
... everyone's favorite terrestrial crustacean.
EXACTLY.
But but but - what about me? ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Earwigs aren't crustaceans; woodlice are, as are the species that curl up, the pill bugs. Woodlice are called sow bugs in the US, apparently (and curly bakers in Somerset)
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
My cats still luv your species, Earwig
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Earwigs aren't crustaceans; woodlice are, as are the species that curl up, the pill bugs. Woodlice are called sow bugs in the US, apparently (and curly bakers in Somerset)
The name of this particular bug is susceptible to incredible regional variation in the US-- hell, in California-- but Google Images tells me "Yep, that's the bug I'm talking about."
Earwig--you are the subject of many gruesome urban legends, isn't that enough?
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
RE: Firenze: "They would say that, wouldn't they? Just wait til the bluetits work out how to operate the door handles..."
I too, love you, Firenze! Your posts are making me spit food all over my laptop... which is both amusing and disgusting!
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This may be the best thread posted on any board, ever. Cryptozoology, vintage Who, Bill Hicks, ichthyology, bird sex-- Jesus, throw in something about the common sowbug and I might just have an orgasm.
Sister, you really need to get out more!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Speak for yourself.
(ETA: AristonAstuanax understands. What need have I for further response?)
[ 29. June 2012, 19:37: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If you like Cryptids, have you tried reading this?
Aeslin Mice FTW! Cheese and Cake!
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
1) Some never developed beyond the intellectual level of an eight-year old and are incapable of grasping metaphor and symbolic thought - Genesis must be literally, factually true in every detail or else nothing in the Bible is of any use;
The three stages of argument:
a) They don't know the facts - if they did they'd agree with me. They are ignorant.
b) I've told them the facts but they obviously lack the intellectual ability to follow my logic. They are idiots.
c) I've explained it all so carefully a three year old would understand. They must understand but be deceitfully pretending they don't for some nefarious purpose.
"So it goes," as they say on Tralfamadore.
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Earwig--you are the subject of many gruesome urban legends, isn't that enough?
Im in ur brane, layin ma eggs.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Don't think I don't know that, ya freak.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
1) Some never developed beyond the intellectual level of an eight-year old and are incapable of grasping metaphor and symbolic thought - Genesis must be literally, factually true in every detail or else nothing in the Bible is of any use;
The three stages of argument:
a) They don't know the facts - if they did they'd agree with me. They are ignorant.
b) I've told them the facts but they obviously lack the intellectual ability to follow my logic. They are idiots.
c) I've explained it all so carefully a three year old would understand. They must understand but be deceitfully pretending they don't for some nefarious purpose.
"So it goes," as they say on Tralfamadore.
Sometimes idiots are idiots. I maintain that for many fundamentalist Christians (and atheists) anything less than 100% historicity destroys the credibility of the entire book. They can't accept that Genesis might disclose certain spiritual truths while not being an accurate account of the physical creation.
The other possibility that I hold out is that they are fearful - they possess the capacity to view the Bible on more than a purely literal plane but fear that to do so leaves too much up to individual interpretation and that their faith is too weak to allow it to withstand rational inspection.
Idiots or cowards. Which one are you?
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks! England, you are now our Australia. xoxo North America
Not sure about this - I thought we populated Australia with our criminals - we sent the (worst of our) religious fruitcakes across the pond - where some of them appear to have flourished.
America was founded by the people that Europe had the good sense to deport.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks! England, you are now our Australia. xoxo North America
Not sure about this - I thought we populated Australia with our criminals - we sent the (worst of our) religious fruitcakes across the pond - where some of them appear to have flourished.
America was founded by the people that Europe had the good sense to deport.
Given the history of Europe at least through the 1940s, I'd say that that can only speak well of the Americans.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Yeah, Pond War! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Seriously though, if we begin a "who is more screwed up than whom" thread, we all lose.
And then the creationists win, as the content of the posts generally argue against evolution.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Given the history of Europe at least through the 1940s, I'd say that that can only speak well of the Americans.
Given the history of the United States through 2012, I'd say it's a toss-up.
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on
:
Given the history of the world in general, I'd say it's time to move to Mars.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
Given the history of the world in general, I'd say it's time to move to Mars.
They are auditioning for the chance...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
I'd say it's time to move to Mars.
You keep us out of this.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
It's not just Nessie - apparently the Giant's Causeway proves, er, something.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's not just Nessie - apparently the Giant's Causeway proves, er, something.
This link freezes my computer. I see the page, but it won't allow me to navigate.
This is a general heads up.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's not just Nessie - apparently the Giant's Causeway proves, er, something.
All it proves is that there are still people in the world who think crazy superstitious claptrap should be considered equal to reasoned scientific discovery.
[ETA: the link was fairly slow, but worked fine on my PC]
[ 06. July 2012, 10:26: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Sorry about that. It's the Independent's website that's crap, I think.
Try The Guardian.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
The Giant's Causeway (Clochán na bhFomhórach) has been a point of contention for years with a planned visitors centre that initially looked like it was lining someone's pocket that it otherwise shouldn't have. Finally they got their act together and they have a fantastic space to put in the history of the site and record some of the legends (Fionn mac Cumhaill, the Irish warrior being the most famous one). Everybody thinks it's going to be great, but what do we get? Some fucking idiot claiming to speak for every Christian who says Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. In a fucking visitors centre for people all over the world to come to! How embarrassing. How this was ever allowed I do not know. So bloody typical of an area where your sister might also be your mother. Bunch of inbred pricks.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
OK I believe in the Loch Ness monstoer , Ogopogo in Lake Okanagan BC Cadborosarus off Cadboro Bay BC, Champ in Lake Champlain NY-Vt-Quebec Both lake Champlain & Lake Okanagen are very deep lakes .
As fopr fundies teaching that dinosaurs & man existed at the same time . That is dafter than anything I have heard of lately, oh maybe except the 10,000 year old earth also part of the ACE program. Their idea of science is mystic . ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Liberty (# 713) on
:
About 10 years ago some friend of a friend came to speak to my house group (part of a perfectly normal (as churches go) mainstream church).
This guy told us that Nessie disproved evolution, because she proved that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. His theories included that the fossils we see of big dinosaurs are from pre-flood times. See, reptiles (including stick insects) grow to the size of the space they're in, so pre-Noah's flood there was more land, dinosaurs were big. Post-flood they are small, just the iguanas, lizards, Nessie's and stick insects we see today. Nessie is a dinosaur. Apparently.
I also seem to remember him saying something about how the human appendix is not at all vestigial as vegetarians would die without it.
Working with young kids as I do, I've never looked at the class tank of stick insects in the same way ever again.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liberty:
This guy told us that Nessie disproved evolution, because she proved that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.
Ah, I think I finally get it now. Because you can't evolve from something that hasn't died out yet, right?
Oh Lordy.
Also, who knew that humans were reptiles? NEAT!
[ 10. July 2012, 08:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I think I'm missing something here. If evidence was found that dinosaurs and humans had existed together at some time (even if they still did) why would that disprove evolution? No one uses the fact that insects exist alongside humans as an argument against evolution, or do they?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Not really; it's more about demonstrating that The Evil Godless Atheist Scientists™ are wrong. Once you can demonstrate at least to yourself that they are wrong about something, then they can be wrong about everything, including evolution.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
No one uses the fact that insects exist alongside humans as an argument against evolution, or do they?
But no-one ever claimed that us chordates were evolved "from" insects either.
Of course no-one ever claimed mammals were evolved from dinosaurs. Seeing as we've been around as long or longer than they have.
Maybe its the ambiguity of that unhelpful word "reptile".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I think I'm missing something here. If evidence was found that dinosaurs and humans had existed together at some time (even if they still did) why would that disprove evolution? No one uses the fact that insects exist alongside humans as an argument against evolution, or do they?
You're missing the same thing I was missing on page 1 around the time that I was thinking that crocodiles and spiders don't disprove evolution either.
Let's face it, these people who are complete nincompoops. The problem isn't that they failed science so much as that they failed logic and have no semblance of reasoning capacity. I mean, if I wanted to disprove evolution, I sure as fuck wouldn't choose Nessie as my argument even if Nessie was proved to exist.
[ 10. July 2012, 11:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
On the first page of this thread Yorick made a point that many have not taken. We tend cling to some beliefs that people who did not grow up with our same environment and assumptions find incredulous. For Yorick it is the belief quote:
that a bloke who was conceived without sexual union and born to a bronze-age Middle-Eastern peasant virgin woman was in fact also God The Fuckoff Almighty . . .
I use that same notion (different language) sometimes in comparative religion Sunday School classes when people make fun of, say, Hindu beliefs.
If you have grown up with the belief that the Bible is a historically accurate document evolution is not a scientific theory. Evolution is an atheistic attack on the Bible. So, you have to go about proving that the tenets of evolution are wrong. If Nessie is a dinosaur and still around, it tends to show that the evolutionists got it wrong. Never-mind, as Robert Armin and orfeo pointed out, the presence of Nessie, even as a dinosaur, does not disprove evolution. You hang on to what you can get.
Many of us on the Ship believe that the Bible need not be historically accurate to be true and holy. In doing so we make value judgments about the accuracy of the Bible, and thus of what portions of the Bible should be taken in without mental editing of what it actually "says." If you believe God inspired the Bible and meant it to be accurate, such editing is hugely egotistic and wrong.
We say we must be right because the greatest minds in the world, along with tons and tons of evidence, say we are right about evolution. Keep in mind that the brightest minds in the world have held one scientific theory after another that has later been proven wrong. Remember all the folks who poo pooed plate tectonics?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course no-one ever claimed mammals were evolved from dinosaurs.
Typical godless evolutionists. Talk about moving the goalposts - they don't even set them up in the right place to begin with.
Still glass half full: even godless evolutionists have to concede that mammals weren't evolved from dinosaurs.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
On the first page of this thread Yorick made a point that many have not taken. We tend cling to some beliefs that people who did not grow up with our same environment and assumptions find incredulous. For Yorick it is the belief quote:
that a bloke who was conceived without sexual union and born to a bronze-age Middle-Eastern peasant virgin woman was in fact also God The Fuckoff Almighty . . .
Yorick's point was that there is no qualitative difference between a belief in creation exactly as it sets forth in the book of Genesis and belief that God became a man and died in order to save us from sin and death.
The difference is that the first belief requires a belief against evidence. The Bible makes a lot of statements which can be proven false by simple observation. The heavens don't rotate around the earth, and didn't stop during some ancient Hebrew battle. Pi is not exactly 3. The mustard seed is not actually the smallest of seeds. If you're looking for the Bible to be a science book, you're going to be sorely disappointed. There's another thread in Purgatory about why the Bible doesn't contain "useful information" like medical practices and architectural primers. But that's not the point of the Bible. It never was.
You don't need to reject reality to believe that Jesus is God.
I worry about any faith that requires self-delusion and rejection of objective reality in order to maintain. In that worldview, anyone who investigates the natural world and comes to different conclusions is a tool of Satan. Hell of a place to put your head.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Tortuf, your reasoning doesn't work in my experience. The people I know who choose to believe in creationism are all teenage or adult converts, either to Christianity from a background of no faith, or to a more evangelical Christianity from the CofE. These people were not brought up with the Bible as the roots of their understanding, they choose to follow it.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let's face it, these people who are complete nincompoops. The problem isn't that they failed science so much as that they failed logic and have no semblance of reasoning capacity.
No, that's really not true. These people aren't any stupider than anyone else. What they are is ignorant, not the same thing at all. Not everyone can know everything. Does everyone know how a differential gearbox works? Or what route the armies took to the Battle of Blenheim? Or how to cook cassava? Or the nam,es of the stars of Orion's belt? (*)
They don;t know much about biology or genetics. Maybe because they aren't interested in it, or its not important to them, or they never had a chance to learn. That's not a problem for the rest of us. (**)
The real problem for the rest of us is that that ignorance is recruited by others in organised political campaigns against science and healthcare and other worthwhile things. They are being lied to. Led astray. But thaat makes them fellow-victims, not stupid.
(*) Heck, even I don't know one of those things and I'm an all-time super-genius nerd with thousands of books on my shelf and heaps of university degrees and suchlike paper.
(**) Its no more a problem for me that my neighbour doesn't know the difference between a clade and a grade in phylogenetics than it is a problem for my neighbour that I don't know anything about... well, whatever it is that I don't know anything about because as I don't know anything about the things that I don't know anything about I don't know what they are.
[ 10. July 2012, 14:36: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
originally posted by ken:
The real problem for the rest of us is that that ignorance is recruited by others in organised political campaigns against science and healthcare and other worthwhile things. They are being lied to. Led astray. But thaat makes them fellow-victims, not stupid.
What it makes them is dangerous. Stupid can be excused as those who can accurately be described as stupid are not at fault. Willful ignorance is less excusable. Victims? I suppose. But complicit victims.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
In the 1970s belief in the Loch Ness Monster was held by some quite well regarded natural scientists. Peter Scott was one of them. I think he even managed to take a picture of its fin although I suppose it could have been a giant herring. Not much earlier the fossil fish coelocanth had been discovered to be lounging around in the deep.
It seems unlikely but who knows? Certainly Christians are asked to believe some pretty outre sort of stuff compared with which the existence Nessie seems quite a possibility.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
In the 1970s belief in the Loch Ness Monster was held by some quite well regarded natural scientists. Peter Scott was one of them. I think he even managed to take a picture of its fin although I suppose it could have been a giant herring. Not much earlier the fossil fish coelocanth had been discovered to be lounging around in the deep.
It seems unlikely but who knows? Certainly Christians are asked to believe some pretty outre sort of stuff compared with which the existence Nessie seems quite a possibility.
Way to miss the point.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
In the 1970s belief in the Loch Ness Monster was held by some quite well regarded natural scientists. Peter Scott was one of them. I think he even managed to take a picture of its fin although I suppose it could have been a giant herring. Not much earlier the fossil fish coelocanth had been discovered to be lounging around in the deep.
It seems unlikely but who knows? Certainly Christians are asked to believe some pretty outre sort of stuff compared with which the existence Nessie seems quite a possibility.
Way to miss the point.
What does that mean in English?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
In the 1970s belief in the Loch Ness Monster was held by some quite well regarded natural scientists. Peter Scott was one of them.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Tortuf, your reasoning doesn't work in my experience. The people I know who choose to believe in creationism are all teenage or adult converts, either to Christianity from a background of no faith, or to a more evangelical Christianity from the CofE. These people were not brought up with the Bible as the roots of their understanding, they choose to follow it.
Then they have emotional reasons for finding a way to support their newly found beliefs, just like people who grew up surrounded by those beliefs.
As long as we liberals are willing to treat those who believe differently than us as lesser beings we are in no position to complain about how conservatives treat us. Everyone is entitled to have their beliefs treated with some dignity.
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
Somebody should send these people what St. Augustine said:
quote:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.[1 Timothy 1.7]
It'd be quite funny to see them call St. Augustine a modernist, liberal heretic.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Then [Christian converts] have emotional reasons for finding a way to support their newly found beliefs, just like people who grew up surrounded by those beliefs.
As long as we liberals are willing to treat those who believe differently than us as lesser beings we are in no position to complain about how conservatives treat us. Everyone is entitled to have their beliefs treated with some dignity.
Mmm - where did I say I treated someone as an inferior being? All I said there was that the people I knew who were creationists or YECcies were later converts, not brought up with these beliefs.
But having been around when Young Earth Creationism has been asserted, and books and websites have been cited, there is no way I have found to say anything different. I have said that I believe in evolution, and had eyes rolled around me. I've also said, in answer to a student asking where the dinosaurs went that some of them evolved into birds, and heard sharp intakes of breath from all the other adults in the room.
But it's really hard. Another lad who'd been brought up RC was spluttering about the nonsense in the Bible - particularly how Noah's Ark was impossible, all the animals and everything in a boat ... I'd have chatted about allegory and metaphor (well, in term of underlying truths) but I opened my mouth to say something and one of the YECcies had leapt out of an office and was saying but of course it was true. There were all these pictures on Ararat, and of course it was totally real ... I shut my mouth. But thought it was such a great opportunity lost.
And any argument back publicly is shouted down by ill-informed guff*, and total lack of understanding of anything scientific. So when everything I say is trashed, it's very difficult to feel that wonderfully loving back.
*different people, different workplaces, more than once.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Read other posts in the thread to answer your first question.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Oh, so that wasn't a personal attack? It can't have been aimed at me; the only comments I've made on this thread before the one you responded to have been a crack about birds evolving from dinosaurs another comment that earwigs are not crustaceans. So why address it personally?
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Are we having a bad day?
Did you notice the separate paragraphs?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Yes, and you put your head above the parapet
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
In the 1970s belief in the Loch Ness Monster was held by some quite well regarded natural scientists. Peter Scott was one of them. I think he even managed to take a picture of its fin although I suppose it could have been a giant herring. Not much earlier the fossil fish coelocanth had been discovered to be lounging around in the deep.
It seems unlikely but who knows? Certainly Christians are asked to believe some pretty outre sort of stuff compared with which the existence Nessie seems quite a possibility.
Way to miss the point.
What does that mean in English?
It means that you're a moron.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let's face it, these people who are complete nincompoops. The problem isn't that they failed science so much as that they failed logic and have no semblance of reasoning capacity.
No, that's really not true. These people aren't any stupider than anyone else. What they are is ignorant, not the same thing at all. Not everyone can know everything. Does everyone know how a differential gearbox works? Or what route the armies took to the Battle of Blenheim? Or how to cook cassava? Or the nam,es of the stars of Orion's belt? (*)
They don;t know much about biology or genetics. Maybe because they aren't interested in it, or its not important to them, or they never had a chance to learn. That's not a problem for the rest of us. (**)
The real problem for the rest of us is that that ignorance is recruited by others in organised political campaigns against science and healthcare and other worthwhile things. They are being lied to. Led astray. But thaat makes them fellow-victims, not stupid.
(*) Heck, even I don't know one of those things and I'm an all-time super-genius nerd with thousands of books on my shelf and heaps of university degrees and suchlike paper.
(**) Its no more a problem for me that my neighbour doesn't know the difference between a clade and a grade in phylogenetics than it is a problem for my neighbour that I don't know anything about... well, whatever it is that I don't know anything about because as I don't know anything about the things that I don't know anything about I don't know what they are.
The reason I think they're stupid is not so much because of things that they don't know, but because they see fit to make PRONOUNCEMENTS on topics they clearly don't know anything about. There's a fundamental difference between recognising your own lack of knowledge and parading it as if you DO know something.
I have certain creationist tendencies myself. Yes. Gasp. But I can clearly understand that the existence of Nessie would totally fail to disprove evolution. Which is probably why it annoys me so much that someone would be foolish enough to open their mouth and declare that Nessie disproves evolution. You can only say that if your knowledge of the theory of evolution consists of believing that it says dinosaurs are inherently 'old creatures' and we are inherently 'new creatures'.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Tortuf, re your long post about different perspectives and backgrounds.
I think one thing that critics of creationists often miss is that many people live by stories. Myths, in the deep sense of the word. Some non-creationists do get that, at least to an extent: Carl Sagan could spin a really awe-inspiring speech about evolution; and I saw Richard Dawkins and his wife, Lalla Ward, do a great symphonic reading of his book, "The Ancestors' Tale".
Poet Muriel Rukeyser has a great line: "The universe is made of stories, not of atoms."
I think there's much to be said for both creationism and evolution. I've also been firmly rooted in the first chapter of Genesis, plus assorted other nature verses (even the animistic ones), since I was very little. I ain't givin' it up. To do so would be like ripping the yarn in a sweater to shreds, somehow undying it, and possibly putting it back on the sheep to start over. But I also love science, in the sense discovering, observing, and figuring out. This is one place where my "holding everything as puzzle pieces" comes in handy!
As to Nessie: I have no idea if s/he/they exist...but I firmly believe a world with such beasties is better than one without them. (Well, most of them--we can skip things like the chupacabra! )
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
(Missed the edit window.)
The creation story in Genesis 1 hits the spot for a lot of people. (As, I imagine, other people love the creation stories of their traditions.)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think one thing that critics of creationists often miss is that many people live by stories. Myths, in the deep sense of the word. Some non-creationists do get that.
Yes - I have a wonderful children's big book which tells the story of evolution in pictures and poetry. It really does inspire awe and wonder.
The creation story is true for me, at a deep level. The fact that the world wasn't created that way misses the point entirely imo.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
As to Nessie: I have no idea if s/he/they exist...but I firmly believe a world with such beasties is better than one without them. (Well, most of them--we can skip things like the chupacabra! )
I firmly believe that a world in which all beings excrete nuggets of pure, clean carbon-free energy is better than one where we don't. Either other people disagree or beliefs, whether firm or otherwise, don't count for shit.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
In the 1970s belief in the Loch Ness Monster was held by some quite well regarded natural scientists. Peter Scott was one of them. I think he even managed to take a picture of its fin although I suppose it could have been a giant herring. Not much earlier the fossil fish coelocanth had been discovered to be lounging around in the deep.
It seems unlikely but who knows? Certainly Christians are asked to believe some pretty outre sort of stuff compared with which the existence Nessie seems quite a possibility.
Way to miss the point.
What does that mean in English?
It means that you're a moron.
I apologise if I have displeased Madam.
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think there's much to be said for both creationism and evolution.
Maybe, but only one of these has any place in a science classroom. By which I mean that stories that help us make sense of the world are undoubtedly valuable, but they are a different kind of beast from the idealized sterile scientific investigation and the knowledge which can be gained from it.
However, the flip side of that is that many people have an over-inflated opinion of what science can achieve. In particular, science itself cannot prove that science is somehow the most fundamental Truth (that would be circular logic). But this is a point which is often missed, and is not well taught, in my experience.
On a different tack. One time I was at church on a Sunday evening (the same church that Liberty referred to above) and the preacher, who was a former pastor and well-respected member of the congregation, was giving one of his stump-sermons inveighing against the evils of modern life. He had several of these, one on Teh Gayz, another against general "loose morals", but that evening he was in full flow about how ridiculous the very idea of evolution was. His argument was essentially one of incredulity (great logic!) but at one point he very smugly "disproved" evolution by pointing out that one cannot drop a rowing boat into a lake, leave it a hundred years, and expect it to "evolve" into an aircraft carrier. I kid you not: That was his argument! Which illustrates the point that many who argue against evolution don't really understand what the theory says and how a scientific understanding of evolution goes. (There are notable exceptions to this, of course, and I don't want to tar all creationists with this brush.)
I try to take this as a cautionary tale: One can make oneself look bloody stupid if one talks at length about a subject about which one knows little.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The other argument I've heard, while looking at foetal development (yes, really)*, was that when you look at the world and how specialised something like a duck is and how unspecialised man is, how can we say evolution happens? Surely man would be more specialised, and this is proof that man is created.
*if you look at foetal development it is another area that suggests/demonstrates evolution.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Ducks aren't limited at all! They swim quickly, dive, eat almost anything (raw), fly faster than most birds and will attempt to mate with almost any other fowl. They hone your shooting skills and are good to eat too.
Man on the other hand is slow on land and in water, can't climb very well, isn't desperately strong and is prone to disease. A lot of smaller, lighter animals can see him off. What he can do is think intellectually and creatively and make things, which enables man to do far more than any animal.
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
And man (and woman) can run long distances without tiring. As described in a recent Slate article. If the premise of this piece is to be believed, humans evolved in very specific ways to be able to hunt in a manner that no other creature could.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
. . . humans evolved in very specific ways to be able to hunt in a manner that no other creature could.
This is true. Very few other creatures hunt in cocktail lounges.
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
You've been listening to Sine again, haven't you? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think there's much to be said for both creationism and evolution.
Maybe, but only one of these has any place in a science classroom.
Hear hear!
quote:
[...] he was in full flow about how ridiculous the very idea of evolution was. His argument was essentially one of incredulity (great logic!) but at one point he very smugly "disproved" evolution by pointing out that one cannot drop a rowing boat into a lake, leave it a hundred years, and expect it to "evolve" into an aircraft carrier. I kid you not: That was his argument! Which illustrates the point that many who argue against evolution don't really understand what the theory says and how a scientific understanding of evolution goes.
Yes. That's ignorance rather than stupidity. The bloke has never actually learned anything about the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have certain creationist tendencies myself. Yes. Gasp.
Any Christian has to be a creationist of course, in that we belive that God creates the world.
But we don't have to be liars. We don;t have to p[retend that the world looks like its young when in fact it looks like its old. The vast majority of the YECcies are simply ignorant and are accepting what they are told by people they trust. I don't think they are all stupid (and sometimes it seems to me that there is a lot of snobbery coming from thise that do think they are all stupid) and I don't feel very angry at them.
But I feel very angry at some of the so-called Creation Science people and the IDiots. They are liars. Someone who claims to have studied biology or geology seriously and also claims that the world looks as if it is only a few thousand years old is lying about one or the other claim. So there is no point in arguing with them about the scientific details - they don't care about that - it is their morality, their politics, and their theology, that are broken, not their science. But some of them at least are are lying. I don't know why they are doing it. Maybe its a social control thing, a way of dominating others, a source of political power, of controlling votes, maybe they like the adulation of all their followers. Or it might be just a career move. A modern version of the snake-oil salesman, quacks peddling fake goods from town to town.
There is a logical get-out for YEC of course, it is possible to beleive that the world looks ancie3nt but is in fact young. The notorious Omphalos theory, the idea that God created the world recently but deliberately fixed it so that it looks older. As suggested by Philip Henry Gosse who was a much cleverer man than most people recognised. But most YECcies don't accept it for other reasons, chiefly that it makes God out to be a liar (actually Gosse thought that it didn't for possibly rather vague handwavingy reasons to do with cyclic natural phenomena but his critics never really accepted that) The Omphalos has (for Gosse if for no-one else) the convenient property that the Young-Earth Creationist who is also a scientist can continue to believe in the Bible, and to believe that the Bible claims that God created the world in six ordinary days, and also can continue to study the natural world, without having to tell any lies. The so-called "Creation Scientists" can't.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
The Loch Ness monster is proof that my time machine works!
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Loch Ness monster is proof that my time machine works!
Aaaand we're back to Doctor Who again.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
. . . humans evolved in very specific ways to be able to hunt in a manner that no other creature could.
This is true. Very few other creatures hunt in cocktail lounges.
Bravo.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Has anyone spotted this yet?
It's from the Scottish Herald and deals with a US fundie classroom curriculum that appears to use Nessie as an argument against Evolution:
Someone may have to tidy the link up for me ... I'm not that good with this sort of thing:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/how-american-fundamentalist-schools-are-using-nessie-to-disprove-evolution.17918 511
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
There's a lot of attention on Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) at the moment. If you want to know more, Jonny Scaramanga has an excellent blog on Leaving Fundamentalism where he discusses his experiences of being brought up in that environment.
It's truly eye-opening.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Has anyone spotted this yet?
It's from the Scottish Herald and deals with a US fundie classroom curriculum that appears to use Nessie as an argument against Evolution:
Someone may have to tidy the link up for me ... I'm not that good with this sort of thing:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/how-american-fundamentalist-schools-are-using-nessie-to-disprove-evolution.17918 511
Not sure if joking... (looks at first post).
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Has anyone spotted this yet?
It's from the Scottish Herald and deals with a US fundie classroom curriculum that appears to use Nessie as an argument against Evolution:
Someone may have to tidy the link up for me ... I'm not that good with this sort of thing:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/how-american-fundamentalist-schools-are-using-nessie-to-disprove-evolution.17918 511
As the previous poster just said - you didn't bother to read the thread did you? Just jumped in to babble away?
I don't fix a moron's coding. I just leave it for people to laugh and snicker at.
PeteC
The Kindly Hellhost
[ 11. July 2012, 17:49: Message edited by: PeteC ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Many apologies. I overlooked the first section/s and only caught it part way through.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I submit to shame and ridicule.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Loch Ness monster is proof that my time machine works!
Aaaand we're back to Doctor Who again.
This is what leapt to mind first, for me.
(Gamaliel, you're not a moron. A space cadet, maybe, but not a moron. )
Posted by Liberty (# 713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The reason I think they're stupid is not so much because of things that they don't know, but because they see fit to make PRONOUNCEMENTS on topics they clearly don't know anything about. There's a fundamental difference between recognising your own lack of knowledge and parading it as if you DO know something.
It worries me in education how easy it is to BS an answer than to say "I don't know", or "it's not clear". My TA told my 2nd Graders that the sky is blue because it reflects the sea... and the sea is blue because it is deep. He admitted to me later that he knew he was guessing. God knows what stupid things I've said in ignorance, when I think I know but actually don't. But I refuse to say stuff that I know I don't know.
As Rumsfeld said... unknown unknowns, known unknowns etc.
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Yeah, whatever so-called YEC "scientists" practice, it ain't science. They begin by stating their conclusion as fact, and selectively choose "evidence" that seems to support it.
That's how religion works, so why shouldn't science? Mind you, I'm a card carrying Christian.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So perhaps if certain vociferous fanatics give up associating science with atheism, you might just find a bit more moderation on the fundie front.
Just as "violence begets violence", so idiocy begets idiocy.
Uh, no. As the product of two, count 'em, scientists, particle physicists no less, I can say that if scientists are atheists, it's simply because they don't care about religion, not because they equate science and atheism. And if they get vehement, it's as a reaction to the anti-intellectual denial of empirical evidence that gets passed of as religion. Otherwise they just couldn't be bothered. My parents were de facto atheists, but they didn't call themselves that because they simply didn't care enough to take a position, unless idiot Christians got their dander up. The same is true of most of my atheist, or simply a-religious friends. They're mostly willing to live and let live, except when confronted with creationist-type idiocy, or narrow minded, bigoted, anti-dead-horse-of-the-moment demagoguery. Of course, some of them have been clobbered by enough of that kind of religion that their reaction has become knee-jerk. My evangelism, such as it is, is to show them that religion doesn't have to be like that, and sometimes they calm down. Undo the damage, as it were. Dawkins has an audience because the straw man he sets up as religion is the religion people actually see around them.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
Oh I know LeRoc....when i last spoke to Nessie she was very upset to find out she did't exist.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
Dawkins has an audience because the straw man he sets up as religion is the religion people actually see around them.
Doesn't that mean that it's not actually a straw man?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liberty:
God knows what stupid things I've said in ignorance, when I think I know but actually don't. But I refuse to say stuff that I know I don't know.
Charles Williams wrote a prayer for St. Thomas' day which included the line, "Lord, confess we never, not knowing, swore we knew."
Moo
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
Dawkins has an audience because the straw man he sets up as religion is the religion people actually see around them.
Doesn't that mean that it's not actually a straw man?
It's a straw man in so far as it's the easiest sort of religion to attack, and they project it be the essence of all religion. People see this sort of religion around them because this sort of Christianity has the PR upper hand. If shrill con evos didn't own the name Christian, there wouldn't be so much shrill anti-Christianity. I know because when I tell people I'm Christian, I get a reaction to the effect of, "Really? But you're not like like them." And mind you, the influence of militant atheists is non-existent compared to evangelicals (in the US certainly).
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liberty:
I also seem to remember him saying something about how the human appendix is not at all vestigial as vegetarians would die without it.
Here are some researchers' ideas about the possible *current* function of the appendix, via Wikipedia.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0