Trying to turn the myth of Noah's Ark into reality through alleged scientific facts is nonsensical
I always find it amusing to read letters referring to Noah's Ark/The Flood as if they were proven facts. Yet, it is also disappointing to realise that many adults still cling to these childish delusions.
The most disturbing aspect is the mental gymnastics employed by those who try to shoehorn "scientific" facts into the Noah myth, so that their delusions are preserved intact. This is pseudo-science.
Issues of how many "kinds" of animal entered the Ark are irrelevant, because science does not recognise kinds in classification, referring instead to species.
Expanding the delusion creates enormous difficulties when one considers how penguins might have reached the Middle East and marsupials came from Australasia, yet left no trace of their journeys in the fossil record.
There is also a lack of a Flood myth in ancient Chinese writings of the same time-period and many problems relating to the supposed Ark, such as use of space, food storage, waste management, or even whether the biblical Ark would have floated.
But these are never a problem for the ardent believer.
They might as well turn their intellect over to considering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as attempt to convince people that the bible is a science and history book.
Newtownards, Co Down
Parliament has final say ... not the people
The UK is not a plebiscite democracy, it is not a social media 'like-cracy', it is not run by the will of the people. It is not America.
For the past three-and-a-half centuries, the only legitimising authority after the Crown has been parliament.
Candidates for becoming MPs are not chosen by the people, they are put forward by the parties. Party leaders are not chosen by the people, they are chosen by the parties. Prime Ministers are not chosen by the people, they are appointed by the Crown.
The 'will of the people' is not constituted in UK law: parliament has been sovereign for a very long time.
When the UK had its 1975 EU referendum it was simply a state-sponsored opinion poll and not then considered legally determining. Parliament had approved the European Communities Act of 1972 and every treaty since.
Only by a further act of parliament can these be retracted, hence the Great Repeal Bill with parliamentary scrutiny. None of this was, or should be, determined as solely dependent upon a referendum.
I suggest the referendum was misrepresented as an official plebiscite from the start, that Government was negligent in allowing this to be misunderstood and that the supportive arguments for and against were grossly misrepresented.
The result was as close to 50:50 as need matter. The British people spoke with a resounding (and typical) "maybe/maybe not".
Only parliament can respond "aye" or "nay" - as it has done so since the restoration of the monarchy.
Let's have a UK poll to abolish House of Lords
I note the comments made concerning the court decision that parliament be consulted re the notification of Article 50. It is widely reported as a democratic decision - regardless of the wishes of the UK electorate.
I fear that referring the matter to parliament, as far as the House of Lords is concerned, is unbelievable and undemocratic.
This bloated institution of more than 1,000 members, elected by not one vote for any of them, is a scandal in a country called a democracy.
An unelected legislative body such as this has no credibility - never mind the expenses scandal some members were involved in.
I suggest a referendum on the abolition of this body and the daily attendance fee of £300.
Whitehead, Co Antrim
We can really not trust Trump to run America
Can someone like Trump, who has never held public office, become the most powerful person on the planet and not crash civilisation? Is being president something just anyone off the street can do?
If you were getting an operation, would you trust your life to someone who has never been in an operating room?
So, why would we trust the fate of America to an ill-tempered man whose only government experience is finding novel ways to avoid paying his taxes?
Granted Hillary has her problems. But ...
Gilroy, California, USA
Maybe Irish should've backed King William
Commentators have pointed out the irony of a portrait of King William III overhanging the Brexit deliberations at the Royal Hospital in, Dublin.
The real irony is that, if the Irish had supported him instead of King James (who never cared a jot for Ireland), then the island might not be in the mess it is in now.
Charleville, Co Cork
Islamic extremists and dissidents not similar
Michelle Butler (Comment, November 3) is almost right in her cogent analysis of the difficulties in ending the separation regime for dissident republican extremists in HMP Maghaberry and the need for the communities which sustain them to be involved in a solution.
As the author of the recent independent review of Islamist extremism in GB prisons and probation, I visited Roe House to see those conditions first hand.
Our review concluded the threat posed by Islamist extremists to other vulnerable prisoners was so powerful that the only solution was to isolate the most subversive of these in special units. In other words, the present policy of dispersal was not fit for purpose.
The lethality and mindset of these prisoners is significantly different from NI's dissidents and comparisons are fraught with difficulty.