SafeAsMilk wrote:

Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.

Yeah, ever heard of birds?

Calilasseia wrote:

TheLordShark wrote:Well he/she should be, she must've been on the Ark, given that the flood supposedly killed everything in the sea.

But as the existence of all the fish and reef building corals testifies, it didn't. Which is one of the biggest observational refutations of the entire "global flood" fantasy. Not least because, given what we know about the physiology of these organisms, any "global flood" that actually happened would have exterminated these organisms wholesale. As for fantasy apologetic erections about the "global flood" supposedly keeping fresh and salt water regions separate, despite all the turbulence that would have been present, I'll regard such made up shit as eminently discardable, until I see a working Navier-Stokes fluid dynamic model upholding this assertion. None of which, of course, helps with the reef building corals, because not only would they have been subject to massive osmoregulatory shock, they'd also have been cut off from light by an extra 9,000 metres of water, which would have killed their symbiotic zooxanthelllae, and without those, the corals would have died in pretty short order. Similarly, all the aquatic angiosperm plants would have been exterminated wholesale by the same mechanism, not to mention being buried under millions of tons of silt.

But of course, creationists are so emotionally attached to their fantasy "global flood", despite the implications it has for their magic man as the ultimate biocidal murderer, one that makes Hitler look like a choirboy, that they'll continue making shit up to prop up this fantasy, no matter how often and how hard reality points and laughs at their efforts.

Ian Tattum wrote:It does not actually say that in Genesis- the water creatures seemingly had an exemption.

Except that for the reasons I've given above, said "exemption" would have been non-existent. The wholesale changes in salinity in every body of water on the planet, that would have arisen from the fantasy "global flood", would, if this fantasy event had ever happened, have wiped out all the reef building corals, all the stenohaline fishes (i.e, 99% of all known fish species), and all the aquatic angiosperm plants. They would no longer exist. The tropical fish happily swimming in my two aquaria just 6 feet from my armchair point and laugh at creationist assertions with respect to this.

Ian Tattum wrote:So as Nessie currently lives in fresh water, he would have had a chance of surviving when the seas were massively inundated with fresh ground water and rain water.

Except for the fact that any such organism would have been left with nothing to eat. Which would kick in pretty quickly to kill said organism regardless of any osmoregulatory issues that might have been present. This is based upon the fact that in order to be active in the cold waters of Loch Ness, any large marine organism would need to be warm-blooded. My understanding is that most of the fish found there reside in the shallows, which become warmer in summer, not an option open to a 50 foot animal, and the fish species in question enter a state of torpor when winter sets in. Consequently, these relatively small, low-mass, cold-blooded organisms can maintain life in the Loch, and also take advantage of the fact that they respire via gills. A large air-breathing marine organism would need to be warm-blooded to maintain any lengthy existence in the Loch, and such an organism would have a much higher energy intake requirement than a cold-blooded fish. Consequently, if such an organism were deprived of food for even a relatively short period of time, it would face death by starvation. I don't know of any warm-blooded organism that can survive without food for a year.

Ian Tattum wrote:Maybe it was the fall of the oceans which strranded him in Loch Ness?

My understanding is that Loch Ness has a connection to the North Sea, via the River Ness and the Beauly Firth. Indeed, some of the alleged sightings of "Nessie" have been in that river, one dating back to the 6th century. I gather the river is deep enough to allow a 50 foot animal to swim through it, as boats larger than this navigate the river regularly.

Ian Tattum wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:Maybe it was the fall of the oceans which strranded him in Loch Ness?

My understanding is that Loch Ness has a connection to the North Sea, via the River Ness and the Beauly Firth. Indeed, some of the alleged sightings of "Nessie" have been in that river, one dating back to the 6th century. I gather the river is deep enough to allow a 50 foot animal to swim through it, as boats larger than this navigate the river regularly.

You have refuted my jest!

CharlieM wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:Maybe it was the fall of the oceans which strranded him in Loch Ness?

My understanding is that Loch Ness has a connection to the North Sea, via the River Ness and the Beauly Firth. Indeed, some of the alleged sightings of "Nessie" have been in that river, one dating back to the 6th century. I gather the river is deep enough to allow a 50 foot animal to swim through it, as boats larger than this navigate the river regularly.

You have refuted my jest!

Hi folks
There seems to be a bit off a lack of opposition to respond to as posters are resorting to jump on tongue-in-cheek posts just to try to get an argument going. Cali's post above is a case in point.

CharlieM wrote:I haven't had time to post here recently, Maybe I'll pick up where I left off as you seem to be in need of some genuine opposing views.

CharlieM wrote:About the River Ness, I spent my first year of my life in a house in Douglas Row on its banks, I met my wife in the Columba Hotel on its banks and we were married in Trinity Church on its banks. I have swam in it, fished on it and canoed on it. I have personal knowledge of the river. Cali on the other hand does not have much knowledge of the river but he does believe that fairly large boats can navigate it.

Now we come into Loch Ness, which is computed to be 22 or 24 miles long, lying in a direct line; it is from one to two miles wide throughout, and in most places 140 fathoms deep without rocks or islands, the water remarkably clear and pleasant, and well stocked with salmon, trout and pike, and never freezes; a sloop of 60 tons burthen is continually sailing on this lake to supply Fort Augustus from Inverness.

CharlieM wrote: But belief is not knowledge and in this case his belief is ill-founded. Canoes are about the only boats you'll see navigating the river. Anything larger than this which travels between Loch Ness and the Moray Firth does not go via the river.

Calilasseia wrote:

CharlieM wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:



My understanding is that Loch Ness has a connection to the North Sea, via the River Ness and the Beauly Firth. Indeed, some of the alleged sightings of "Nessie" have been in that river, one dating back to the 6th century. I gather the river is deep enough to allow a 50 foot animal to swim through it, as boats larger than this navigate the river regularly.

You have refuted my jest!

Hi folks
There seems to be a bit off a lack of opposition to respond to as posters are resorting to jump on tongue-in-cheek posts just to try to get an argument going. Cali's post above is a case in point.

Calilasseia wrote:If you're referring to the post Ian Tattum quoted above, it wasn't in jest. I posted it to point out that the loch has a sea connection large enough for any actual living plesiosaur to navigate. Indeed, the bulk of my contributions in this thread have been substantive objections to the existence of any large animal in that body of water. But don't let this stop you from posting the usual apologetics, will you?

Calilasseia wrote:

CharlieM wrote:I haven't had time to post here recently, Maybe I'll pick up where I left off as you seem to be in need of some genuine opposing views.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

If by "opposing views", you mean "made up shit to prop up fatuous mythology written by superstitious, pre-scientific nomads", do bring it on, we've been in need of some comedy here for a while.

Calilasseia wrote:

CharlieM wrote:About the River Ness, I spent my first year of my life in a house in Douglas Row on its banks, I met my wife in the Columba Hotel on its banks and we were married in Trinity Church on its banks. I have swam in it, fished on it and canoed on it. I have personal knowledge of the river. Cali on the other hand does not have much knowledge of the river but he does believe that fairly large boats can navigate it.

Er no, I based my statement upon actual facts about the width and depth of the river. From this account of inland navigation from 1792, we have on page 560:

Now we come into Loch Ness, which is computed to be 22 or 24 miles long, lying in a direct line; it is from one to two miles wide throughout, and in most places 140 fathoms deep without rocks or islands, the water remarkably clear and pleasant, and well stocked with salmon, trout and pike, and never freezes; a sloop of 60 tons burthen is continually sailing on this lake to supply Fort Augustus from Inverness.

In this view, Inverness Castle is on the right, and St. Andrews Cathedral is on the left. Anglers frequently walk across the river wearing waders in this area. The river is about 100 metres wide, and between 30 and 100 cm deep. After heavy storms the river can rise to the level of the footbridge walkway.

Calilasseia wrote:From here, we learn of a sloop called the Princess Royal, operating in the waters around Vancouver in the late 1780s, and the statistics for this vessel are:

Burthen: 65 tons
Crew: 15
Length: 43 feet
Beam: 16 feet
Draught: 8 feet when laden.

So we have here an account that a vessel of similar size to a large plesiosaur could navigate the relevant waters.

No "belief" involved

CharlieM wrote: But belief is not knowledge and in this case his belief is ill-founded. Canoes are about the only boats you'll see navigating the river. Anything larger than this which travels between Loch Ness and the Moray Firth does not go via the river.

Maybe not now, after the construction of the Caledonian Canal, but before said canal construction, boats of the requisite size did navigate the waters in question. The 60 ton sloop mentioned in the above old account could not "supply fort Augustus from Inverness" without navigating those waters.

A garrison was also stationed at Inverlochy where another citadel at the head of Loch Linnhe was built in 1654. In 1690 a larger fort was built on the same site and named Fort William, after the King. To supply this garrison, Cromwell's men dragged a barque overland in late 1651 on rollers to Loch Ness, three seven-inch cables were snapped in the process. The barque was converted into a Frigate with four guns and a crew of 60 men

lobawad wrote:Nessie Schmessie, it's Amy Pond that's got my sonar going Ping! Ping!

dvada191 wrote:I think all science textbooks should teach about the Loch Ness. I mean, just give them the evidence and let them decide. Teach the controversy!