Badmovies.org Forum

Oh, my. (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/how-american-fundamentalist-schools-are-using-nessie-to-disprove-evolution.17918511)

     If you're a six-day Creationist (as I am), and believe in the world-wide flood spoken of in the Scriptures (as I do), then this makes sense.

     Google Ken Ham, and his work.

   
 http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/ken-ham/bio/

I am an old earth creationist.  I do believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," but the Bible never says specifically when the beginning was.  I have dug a lot of fossils and artifacts and am firmly convinced from my personal excavations that  the earth is WAY older than 6,000 years.

Teaching stuff liek this does a disservice to the kids I think. i'm all for religious freedom and so forth, but how are you going to get a job in the sciences when you study Nessie?

I spent most of my youth reading every book I could find on Nessie and other cryptids, and it is still a subject of great interest for me.  But while I do believe large unknown creatures may reside in some out of the way corners of the earth, I have concluded that there is nothing in Loch Ness and most likely, never was.  A shame really.  I WANTED Nessie to be real SO BAD!

Steve Alten also makes a good case against Nessy in The Loch.  Well, at least the idea of Nessy being a plesiosaur.  One thing he mentioned is that the lake is too cold to sustain a large reptile. 

I also think cryptozoology is neat, but not something I would go for a career in or throw money at.  I think many cases of cryptids are either mistaken identity--because let's face it, most of the people who spotted these animals were not professional biologists--or rare instances of mutations.  The sad thing is tracking down a rare mutation is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I don't believe this article in any of it's claims. It's garbage designed to incite anger.

Are there really schools promoting the Loch Ness Monster as an antithesis to "evolution"? I haven't done the actual research, but I'm pretty sure there aren't. That being said, this article seems to me as "stupid Christians" propaganda.

Do not get me wrong, I am all for the leagues and leagues of evidence that proves speciation by evolution. It isn't a matter of trying to prove Christian's wrong, it's science, which is, and should be, endlessly debated.

This strikes me as an assault on Christian beliefs, just to be ornery.

That being said, I think the Christian belief of intelligent design is wrong. Fundamentally so. But I am not a fan of this shortcut bulls**t.

I am also a creationist and that's what I've thought for a long time....that Nessie was real and is a Plesiosaur. I saw no reason why they couldn't have survived the Great Flood. It is also possible that they could have easily adapted....not evolved... to different climates. As we can't capture Nessie is isn't possible to do the necessary physical tests. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my humble opinion. :smile:

I can tell you that, in New Orleans, this is bogus. Besides, it's actually summer time here in Louisiana. Also, this seems to be suspicious:
Yeah, that's not happening. If they knew anything about the private schools in Louisiana, they would see that it's actually for the extremely wealthy brat kids around my area. The smart kids would go to Franklin, which, in 2009, was voted 26 out of 100 of the BEST SCHOOLS IN THE FRIGGEN NATION by Time Magazine if I'm correct! My school is Franklin's rival, though we have yet to appear on Time.

For starters, a living relic like a plesiosaur being discovered isn't going to disprove evolution.  There are plenty of "living fossils" that have gone unchanged for millions of years-sharks, crocodiles, turtles. etc.

Secondly, Nessie isn't really accepted by mainstream science. So this is try to prove something with something you can't prove either.

Like some of the other members of the board, I've got an interest in Cryptozology. I love the idea that there are actual monsters in the world. I've read plenty of books, articles and watched plenty of tv shows devoted to the subject. BUT, as I heard the evidence for and against it I too have come to the conclusion that most cryptids aren't real.  There might  be the one or two exceptions, but most are mis-identification.

As for my spiritual beliefs, I guess I have what is called a theist view of the universe.  That is, I believe in the big bang, evolution over millions of years-but that God is "behind the scenes" if you will. And that the Bible is meant more to be take figuratively rather than literally. I went to Catholic schools all they way up to college and we were taught evolution in the science class (and never told we had to reject it), and religion was taught in the religion classes.   There's room in my life for reason and faith.

That article's a parody, right?

I've actually been to Loch Ness and had a good time there, but lemme tell you, while it's a lovely place, the entire area is a tourist trap that makes I-75's "See Rock City" seem classy in comparison.

There's the "Original Loch Ness Monster Museum" and down the road its hated rival, the "Official Loch Ness Monster Museum". (The way they talk trash about each other is hilarious! "Ooch, yer din wanna go thair, we're the real deal, we are, but thair a lot of crooks...") If it wasn't for the legend of the monster bringing people in, the entire local economy would crumble, and I wouldn't for one second put it past the people who live there to lie and fake morning, noon, and night to keep the tourist buses coming.

Don't get me wrong, I love Nessie! But if you want the real story, just follow the money.

This seems a lot like something out of the Onion. It wouldn't be the first time a parody/satire article has been mistaken for actual news and "reprinted" by a non-parody news source.

As for Nessie, I don't think it exists. How many times has Loch Ness been searched?

And how many times has the two behind the mystery say it was all a hoax? :teddyr:

You want a real cryptid?  Go to Lake Champlain.  Much more appropriate environment for a giant fish eating beastie!

I first read this as "Are there really schools promoting the Loch Ness Monster as an atheist."

I think I like it better that way. 

plesiosaurs were nearly driven to extinction during the crusades.

How can a major part of a global superpower's population still believe in the biblical creation myth in 2012? And Nessie? Seriously? Is this really taught in schools?
There are some serious problems with this.

Religious faith, by its very definition, is belief in that which cannot be seen and measured.
I have never understood how anyone can possibly believe that this grand and glorious cosmos we live in created ITSELF!

No? Well you should give it a go. I'm not asking you to believe anything you come up with, just to put yourself in a frame of mind where you COULD believe in it. I've always found that simple (or not-so-simple) exercise invaluable.

I ain't trying to tempt you to the other side. If your faith is true, and I am quite sure your's is, you have nothing to worry about as far as anything like flirting with heresy goes. More like an exercise in trying to pinpoint where others thinking goes wrong in matters of importance such as this. You'll be better prepared that way.

In any question such as this, it's important to remember how a question is phrased and what cultural implications are built into the assumptions the question elicits. For example, you phrased the question this way:

"How anyone can possibly believe that this grand and glorious cosmos we live in created ITSELF!"

The "possibly" describes an all-or-nothing way of looking at life, which is loaded enough in itself. But the more interesting word is "created." Created, by its very definition implies creator. So the answer is already loaded into the question. The way you phrase the question would imply that a lack of a creator implies the negation of the cosmos, or a better word, reality. Since I hope we can all agree on at least the existence of reality, the way you phrase your question either requires an existence of a creator or a negation of reality. The answer of that particular question must be predetermined solely for the way the question is phrased.

There are other ways of looking at it.

But you already know I disagree with your beliefs, we've argued quite a lot about it (in a good way, I hope!).

That being said, I whole-heartedly agree with your description "grand and glorious." Also, my arguments are designed to instigate doubt, because whatever I believe (which is not much), I am completely committed to humanity's exploration of reality. That is "grand and glorious" to me, and I welcome ALL avenues of that exploration.

You are, as always, a sincere and intelligent opponent. "Any doctrine which will not bear investigation is an unworthy tenant in the mind of an honest man." I have tried to frame my thoughts around the concept of a universe that is self-creating and self-sustaining, a Creation with no creator save blind chance and natural selection.  I can't see how it works.  Cause demands effect; creation demands a Creator.

I think we can agree that, at some point, there was nothing.  Then there was something.  Did something happen all by itself? Or was something MADE to happen?   The answer to that question is the fundamental difference of opinion that you and I have.

We ventured from evolution to cosmology in the last few posts.
Anyway, if you're interested, here's a lecture by Lawrence Krauss, theorethical physicist. It really is fascinating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

Believe it.      http://creationmuseum.org/  Complete with dinos in the Garden of Eden.

$30 adult admission?! Are they completely off their rockers?! Seriously, I just looked up admission for the Smithsonian's Natural Museum of Natural History, and you know how much admission costs there? Nothing. Nothing.

I seriously doubt they get as much tax dollar funding as the Smithsonian!

$30 is still a lot for a museum of any kind. Well...around here, anyway.

I agree.  Is this the one down in Glen Rose?  I met their assistant director a number of times.  He is a hard core, literalist, 6,000 year "young earther."  He did NOT appreciate my broader interpretation of Genesis.

I don't find much about this article hard to believe.  There's a lot of weird places in the USA.  It might be worth noting that such things are perhaps not extremely rare here, but they're also not really common either.


Why is a creator-less creator readily acceptable, but a creator-less creation isn't?  I honestly can't see a difference.