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

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…272273275277278…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8222
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    @JC: the combined meat requirement for a lion mating pair is 15kg approx per day. that means 5 tonnes of meat needs to stored on the ark just for the lions. How is the meat stored so it won't spoil? And then we have the problem of freshwater to try and resolve.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #8223
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    koth wrote: »
    @JC: the combined meat requirement for a lion mating pair is 15kg approx per day. that means 5 tonnes of meat needs to stored on the ark just for the lions. How is the meat stored so it won't spoil? And then we have the problem of freshwater to try and resolve.

    Ah but they'd be represented by young individuals you see. So it all makes sense.


    Lol.


  • Options
    #8224
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    koth wrote: »
    @JC: the combined meat requirement for a lion mating pair is 15kg approx per day. that means 5 tonnes of meat needs to stored on the ark just for the lions. How is the meat stored so it won't spoil? And then we have the problem of freshwater to try and resolve.
    One common creationist response is that lions were vegetarian until the arrival of "sin" into the world rendered them carnivorous for some reason.

    Most creationism is dishonest and ignorant, but the whole ark thing is one of the few places where creationism can actually be quite funny, since they're left with the unenviable task of trying to make sense of one of their own stories - something that requires the weirdest and most outlandish suppositions.


  • Options
    #8225
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    koth wrote: »
    @JC: the combined meat requirement for a lion mating pair is 15kg approx per day. that means 5 tonnes of meat needs to stored on the ark just for the lions. How is the meat stored so it won't spoil? And then we have the problem of freshwater to try and resolve.

    Prehistoric refrigerators of course. Don't be silly.


  • Options
    #8226
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Faith in God is cool. So just pray near meat and it'll stay refrigerated.

    That's creation science.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8227
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    @JC: the combined meat requirement for a lion mating pair is 15kg approx per day. that means 5 tonnes of meat needs to stored on the ark just for the lions. How is the meat stored so it won't spoil? And then we have the problem of freshwater to try and resolve.
    Although the entire Flood process took over a year, the Ark-critical phase lasted only 5 months ... i.e. the Ark went aground on Ararat after just 5 months ... so any hungry Cat Kind could be let out to feed on any dead meat that they could find ... and given the fact that it was on a high mountain ... dead animals that weren't buried in rock sediment and fossilised would be reasonably well preserved in the cold ... and available to the Lions and other carnivores for several years ... indeed in Siberia, Mammoth carcasses are preserved in the perma-frost right up to today!!!

    ... and as for freshwater ... all that was needed was for the rainwater to be directed off the roof of the Ark into water troughs for the animals ... and into jugs for the Humans ... probably the very first rainwater harvesting system!!!:D

    ... animals can sense if seismic disasters are coming ... and when their lives are on the line ... they can sense people who want to help them ... and they can behave differently to what would normally be expected, as a result.

    ... here is how it probably looked on the day before the Flood ... you will notice that the Big Cats are eminently behaving themselves ... and all of the other creatures are calm and collected!!!



  • Options
    #8228
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    That is the single greatest load of bullsh*t you've ever posted in one go.

    Well, ok, not really. Most of your posts are amazingly insane. But this is the worst one in ooh, at least a week.


  • Options
    #8229
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    That is the single greatest load of bullsh*t you've ever posted in one go.

    Well, ok, not really. Most of your posts are amazingly insane. But this is the worst one in ooh, at least a week.
    Thanks for the 'love'!!!
    Now give us all a laugh ... by trying to explain how you think life actually originated ... and supposedly evolved from microbes to Man.:)


  • Options
    #8230
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    yIxVj.jpg


  • Options
    #8231
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    yIxVj.jpg
    When I was an Evolutionist, I thought that too (but without the expletive) ... but then I realised that it all made sense ... and the alternative ... of Pondscum spontaneously evolving into Man made no sense at any level.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8232
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    ... the whole ark thing is one of the few places where creationism can actually be quite funny, since they're left with the unenviable task of trying to make sense of one of their own stories - something that requires the weirdest and most outlandish suppositions.
    Nothing weird required ... millions of cattle and other large animals are shipped all over the World every year ... so keeping a few thousand animals alive on a giant wooden ship ... which hasn't been matched for size until 2011 isn't weird or outlandish at all.

    ... however, trying to think up a materialistic expalnation for how a microbe could ever spontaneously 'evolve' into Mankind really does involve the weirdest and most outlandish suppositions!!!:)


  • Options
    #8233
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    J C wrote: »
    Although the entire Flood process took over a year, the Ark-critical phase lasted only 5 months ... i.e. the Ark went aground on Ararat after just 5 months ... so any hungry Cat Kind could be let out to feed on any dead meat that they could find ... and given the fact that it was on a high mountain ... dead animals that weren't buried in rock sediment and fossilised would be reasonably well preserved in the cold ... and available to the Lions and other carnivores for several years ... indeed in Siberia, Mammoth carcasses are preserved in the perma-frost right up to today!!!

    ... and as for freshwater ... all that was needed was for the rainwater to be directed off the roof of the Ark into water troughs for the animals ... and into jugs for the Humans ... probably the very first rainwater harvesting system!!!:D

    ... animals can sense if seismic disasters are coming ... and when their lives are on the line ... they can sense people who want to help them ... and they can behave differently to what would be normally expected as a result.

    You HAVE to be 'extracting the urine'!

    129072015098724953.jpg


  • Options
    #8234
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    Thanks for the 'love'!!!
    Now give us all a laugh ... by trying to explain how you think life actually originated ... and supposedly evolved from microbes to Man.:)

    Love? Dude, I told you, I'm not interested in letting you put your willy in me. Christ, some pretend-christians just don't know that no means no...

    There are hundreds of posts and videos in this thread that explain evolution. Remember how you said you'd read or watched them?

    I guess you were lying about that, then. Thanks for answering the question, even if it did take you over a year. If you can be honest just once in the next 6 months I think we'll be making some real progress with you.


  • Options
    #8235
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    joseph brand wrote: »
    You HAVE to be 'extracting the urine'!
    Large and otherwise dangerous animals that find themselves trapped and in danger, often become very calm and try to assist people who are trying to free them.
    Animals are quite intelligent creatures ... and some have sensory abilities that we don't have.


  • Options
    #8236
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Love? Dude, I told you, I'm not interested in letting you put your willy in me.
    That makes two of us without such an interest ... I put the 'love' in inverted commas because you guys seem to hate me instead ... and BTW Christian love doesn't imply a sexual interest ... just concern for other peoples welfare.

    Sarky wrote: »
    There are hundreds of posts and videos in this thread that explain evolution. Remember how you said you'd read or watched them?
    ... and none of them explain how the genetic information arose in the first place ... just how it has been selected and recombined.


  • Options
    #8237
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    They do. I remember writing a couple myself. Why would you say something like that when it's not true?

    I understand you're confused and aroused, but you'll just have to focus. Get past the ironic butthurt of rejection from a straight man and start being truthful with your posts.

    And knock it off with the "I'm not gay" stuff. The number of smilies you insert in each post tells the real story.


  • Options
    #8238
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    They do. I remember writing a couple myself. Why would you say something like that when it's not true?
    Links please.
    Sarky wrote: »
    I understand you're confused and aroused, but you'll just have to focus. Get past the ironic butthurt of rejection from a straight man and start being truthful with your posts.

    And knock it off with the "I'm not gay" stuff. The number of smilies you insert in each post tells the real story
    Which part of me being straight do you not understand?

    Please stop the sexual harassment ... and lying about me ... and stick to trying to prove how Pondkind could ever evolve into Mankind.
    :(
    ... and what do smileys have to do with sexual orientation?
    ... nothing, if you ask me!!!


  • Options
    #8239
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    J C wrote: »
    I was using 'shorthand' ... there were a relatively small number of Human food producing (or clean) Kinds ... and you are correct that 7 pairs of these animals were taken on board (and seven pairs of bird Kinds) ... while 2 pairs of the unclean Kinds were also taken.

    'Shorthand' ok it was quicker to say only land animals and "only a pair" instead of "seven pairs", yeah great shorthand you shaved one character off. You call it shorthand - me and the rest of the people in the real world will call it getting your facts wrong. To be fair you do have plenty of experience in that area.


  • Options
    #8240
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    clever_name wrote: »
    'Shorthand' ok it was quicker to say only land animals and "only a pair" instead of "seven pairs", yeah great shorthand you shaved one character off. You call it shorthand - me and the rest of the people in the real world will call it getting your facts wrong. To be fair you do have plenty of experience in that area.
    I assumed that you guys knew the Biblical details ... and I was proven correct, at least in your case.

    Beyond proving your Biblical knowledge ... what point are you trying to make in relation to the credibility of Evolution ... or the history of the Flood?


  • Options
    #8241
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    Links please.
    You mean you don't remember any of the hundreds of videos? But you swore to me you'd watched them and understood them! Then again, you did just admit a couple of posts up that you hadn't been truthful about that, so I guess that's me told.
    Which part of me being straight do you not understand?
    The part where nobody believes anything you say because everything you've ever claimed is untrue.
    Please stop the sexual harassment ... and lying about me ... and stick to trying to prove how Pondkind could ever evolve into Mankind.
    :(
    As soon as you provide a robust mathematical definition of cfsi.
    ... and what do smileys have to do with sexual orientation?
    Oh, only everything. Don't you pay attention to the internets?
    ... nothing, if you as me!!!

    I'd rather not ass you, thanks. Sounds nasty.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8242
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    J C wrote: »
    I assumed that you guys knew the Biblical details ... and I was proven correct, at least in your case.

    Beyond proving your Biblical knowledge ... what point are you trying to make in relation to the credibility of Evolution ... or the history of the Flood?

    The point is J C that you dont know the details of the book that your using as evidence to prove your point.

    As for credibility... well you have made it quite clear that yours is weak, you dont bother posting actual quotes or check your posts because you presume others will know the correct details.

    So what percentage of your posts contain inaccuracies that you presume others will correct for you?


  • Options
    #8243
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    You mean you don't remember any of the hundreds of videos? But you swore to me you'd watched them and understood them! Then again, you did just admit a couple of posts up that you hadn't been truthful about that, so I guess that's me told.
    Please stop erroneously accusing of being untruthful ... which is lying about me.

    I said that I don't remember any videos that explain how the genetic information arose in the first place ... as distinct from how it has been selected and recombined (which some videos do show and I accept as occurring).

    ... so do you have any videos (or any other information) on how genetic information can spontaneoulsy arise?

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Please stop the sexual harassment ... and lying about me ... and stick to trying to prove how Pondkind could ever evolve into Mankind.

    Sarky
    As soon as you provide a robust mathematical definition of cfsi.
    I have already defined CFSI exhaustively ... but whether I did or I didn't ... doesn't justify you lying about me or engaging in sexual harassment towards me!!!:(


  • Options
    #8244
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Please stop erroneously accusing of being untruthful ... which is lying about me.

    Please stop being dishonest and nobody will need to make such a statement.


  • Options
    #8245
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    I have already defined CFSI exhaustively ... but whether I do or I don't ... doesn't justify engaging in sexual harassment towards me!!!:(

    You have in your arse. Robust mathematical definition, please. The explanations (f*cking lol) you've given so far don't actually work. You're the one who needs to show that Dembski was telling the truth.

    Still waiting.


  • Options
    #8246
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    clever_name wrote: »
    The point is J C that you dont know the details of the book that your using as evidence to prove your point.

    As for credibility... well you have made it quite clear that yours is weak, you dont bother posting actual quotes or check your posts because you presume others will know the correct details.
    The point is that whether or not some Kinds had seven pairs or two pairs makes little difference to the feasibility of the Ark.
    clever_name wrote: »
    So what percentage of your posts contain inaccuracies that you presume others will correct for you?
    Very few ... even though to err is Hiuman ... but any inaccuracy will be undoubtedly identified by you guys ... even when they have no effect on the points ye are trying to make!!!


  • Options
    #8247
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Please stop being dishonest and nobody will need to make such a statement.
    Stop lying about me being dishonest.:(


  • Options
    #8248
    KamiKazeKitten
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭KamiKazeKitten


    J C wrote: »
    Stop lying about me being dishonest.:(

    Stop accusing everyone else of lying and get on with properly defining CFSI then.

    I won't hold my breath for that though....


  • Options
    #8249
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    J C wrote: »
    The point is that whether or not some Kinds had seven pairs or two pairs makes little difference to the feasibility of the Ark.

    the point is that you cant get even basic things right, you mistakenly put in the number two instead of seven then decided it was shorthand. Why would anyone trust anything you mention that has even a hint of complexity?
    J C wrote: »
    Very few ... even though to err is Hiuman ... but any inaccuracy will be undoubtedly identified by you guys ... even when they have no effect on the points ye are trying to make!!!

    Inaccuracy has an effect on credibility and you have been so very very inaccurate.


  • Options
    #8250
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Stop lying about me being dishonest.:(

    Were Lions stored on the ark?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8251
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I have already defined CFSI exhaustively ...

    If you honestly believe that, then it means that the standard of scientific education you received was truly dismal.

    the repetition of defining each individual word has done nothing to clarify what exactly CFSI is.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement