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"

1276277279281282334

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    J C wrote: »
    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm
    ... and here is one peer-reviewed list of a few Mammal Kinds ... or Baramin with their sub-Baramin:-

    ...
    ...

    Felidae (Cat) Baramin
    Felis
    Chinese Mountain Cat Felis bieti
    Jungle Cat Felis chaus
    Sand Cat Felis margarita
    Black-footed Cat Felis nigripes
    Wild Cat Felis silvestris
    African Wild Cat Felis s. silvestris
    Domestic Cat Felis s. catus
    Otocolobus
    Pallas's Cat Otocolobus manul
    Prionailurus
    Leopard Cat Prionailurus bengalensis
    Iriomote Cat Prionailurus iriomotensis
    Flat-headed Cat Prionailurus planiceps
    Rusty-spotted Cat Prionailurus rubiginosus
    Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus
    Acinonyx
    Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus
    Puma
    Cougar Puma concolor
    Jaguarundi Puma yagouaroundi
    Lynx
    Canadian Lynx Lynx canadensis
    Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx
    Iberian Lynx Lynx pardinus
    Bobcat Lynx rufus
    Leopardus
    Pantanal Cat Leopardus braccatus
    Colocolo Leopardus colocolo
    Geoffroy's Cat Leopardus geoffroyi
    Kodkod Leopardus guigna
    Andean Mountain Cat Leopardus jacobitus
    Pampas Cat Leopardus pajeros
    Ocelot Leopardus pardalis
    Oncilla Leopardus tigrinus
    Margay Leopardus wiedii
    Leptailurus
    Serval Leptailurus serval
    Caracal
    Caracal Caracal caracal
    Profelis
    African Golden Cat Profelis aurata
    Catopuma
    Bay Cat Catopuma badia
    Asian Golden Cat Catopuma temminckii
    Pardofelis
    Marbled Cat Pardofelis marmorata
    Neofelis
    Clouded Leopard Neofelis nebulosa
    Bornean Clouded Leopard Neofelis diardi
    Panthera
    Lion Panthera leo
    Jaguar Panthera onca
    Leopard Panthera pardus
    Tiger Panthera tigris
    Uncia
    Snow Leopard Uncia uncia

    This is the list that JC posted regarding the Cat Baramin which was followed up with the following comments:
    J C wrote: »
    It's impossible ... and it also didn't happen that Apes became Man.
    The proof that Lions, Tigers, etc. are the same Baramin is that they are inter-fertile to various degrees ... but Apes and Humans aren't inter-fertile ... so they aren't the same Baramin or Kind
    J C wrote: »
    In any event, the definitive test of animals with common ancestry is their ability to inter-breed (to some degree) ... and Apes and Men cannot interbreed to any degree ... while the Big Cats can all inter-breed.

    Just a small point on this issue. JC claims that the ability to inter-breed is the "definitive" (if there were such a thing) test for sharing the same baramin. However, there's a couple of problems with that. First of all, there are a number of combinations within that "baramin" which have been shown not to be interfertile such as:


    Unsuccessful/Impossible Hybrids

    Margay (Leopardus wiedii) x Little Spotted Cat (Leopardus tigrinus) - No live offspring

    Cougar (Puma concolor) x Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) - One captive pairing resulting in four litters, none of the cubs survived beyond a few days.

    Domestic cat (F. silvestris catus) x Bobcat (Lynx rufus) - Genetic testing has shown the two species not to be interfertile

    Tigard - Male Tiger (Panthera Tigris) x Female Leopard (Panthera Pardus) - Has only ever resulted in stillborn cubs. The same is true of the converse pairing, the leoger.

    Then there are the combinations which have never been recorded making it impossible to determine whether the two species are interfertile or not:


    Unconfirmed/Unobserved Hybrids


    (F. silvestris catus) x (Puma yagouaroundi)
    (F. silvestris catus) x (Lynx canadensis)
    (F. silvestris catus) x (Otocolobus manul)
    (Leopardus wiedii) x (Leopardus pardalis)
    (F. silvestris catus) x (Uncia Uncia)

    This list is incredibly long but I think you get the point. In fact there are very few pairings such as the ligon which result in offspring which even come close to the scientific criteria of viable offspring. FYI, JC, a viable offspring is one that is born alive, grows to adulthood, is fertile and is numerous. Even the most successful felid hybrid pairings such as the ligon have only managed to fulfill the first three of these conditions because of the captive nature of the pairings.


    On another note, JC in the course of his usual waffle made this comment about interfertility in whales:
    J C wrote: »
    No I don't ... but even though False Killer Whales (pseudorcas) and bottlenose dolphins are each from a different genus ... classification systems were thrown into confusion when these two creatures mated and produced a live offspring.
    This places Killer Whales and Dolphins in the one Baramin.

    First of all, the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) cross with a bottlenose dolphin has only ever resulted in two live offspring and there has only been one second generation offspring so I would hardly describe that pairing as viable.

    Secondly, the BSG have placed false killer whales, orcas and bottlenose dolphins in the same baramin because they are using family as an approximation for baramin as I have explained previously. As they are all members of the family delphinidae they naturally occupy the same baramin. In fact the BSG have listed 14 baramins or kinds of whales:

    Suborder Mysticeti

    Balaenidae
    Balaenopteridae
    Eschrichtiidae
    Neobalaenidae

    Suborder Odontoceti

    Delphinidae
    Monodontidae
    Phocoenidae
    Physeteridae
    Kogiidae
    Iniidae
    Lipotidae
    Pontoporiidae
    Planistidae
    Ziphidae

    Classification systems were not upset in the slightest by these pairings JC, real scientists examine all the evidence and adjust their conclusions accordingly. We don't get into a flap when something challenges our worldview. That's more of a religious thing.

    Finally, all this talk of baramins has got me thinking, am I the only one that has this picture in my head when I hear baramin:

    Brahmin_FO3.png



    Edit: One last comment on interfertility. Since, JC, you seem convinced of the interfertility of all members of the Felidae baramin, given that most of the combinations have not resulted in observed offspring, how can you equally make the proclamation that humans and apes are not interfertile on the same basis. You can't have it both ways.


  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    This is the list that JC posted regarding the Cat Baramin which was followed up with the following comments:





    Just a small point on this issue. JC claims that the ability to inter-breed is the "definitive" (if there were such a thing) test for sharing the same baramin. However, there's a couple of problems with that. First of all, there are a number of combinations within that "baramin" which have been shown not to be interfertile such as:


    Unsuccessful/Impossible Hybrids

    Margay (Leopardus wiedii) x Little Spotted Cat (Leopardus tigrinus) - No live offspring

    Cougar (Puma concolor) x Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) - One captive pairing resulting in four litters, none of the cubs survived beyond a few days.

    Domestic cat (F. silvestris catus) x Bobcat (Lynx rufus) - Genetic testing has shown the two species not to be interfertile

    Tigard - Male Tiger (Panthera Tigris) x Female Leopard (Panthera Pardus) - Has only ever resulted in stillborn cubs. The same is true of the converse pairing, the leoger.

    Then there are the combinations which have never been recorded making it impossible to determine whether the two species are interfertile or not:


    Unconfirmed/Unobserved Hybrids


    (F. silvestris catus) x (Puma yagouaroundi)
    (F. silvestris catus) x (Lynx canadensis)
    (F. silvestris catus) x (Otocolobus manul)
    (Leopardus wiedii) x (Leopardus pardalis)
    (F. silvestris catus) x (Uncia Uncia)

    This list is incredibly long but I think you get the point. In fact there are very few pairings such as the ligon which result in offspring which even come close to the scientific criteria of viable offspring. FYI, JC, a viable offspring is one that is born alive, grows to adulthood, is fertile and is numerous. Even the most successful felid hybrid pairings such as the ligon have only managed to fulfill the first three of these conditions because of the captive nature of the pairings.


    On another note, JC in the course of his usual waffle made this comment about interfertility in whales:



    First of all, the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) cross with a bottlenose dolphin has only ever resulted in two live offspring and there has only been one second generation offspring so I would hardly describe that pairing as viable.

    Secondly, the BSG have placed false killer whales, orcas and bottlenose dolphins in the same baramin because they are using family as an approximation for baramin as I have explained previously. As they are all members of the family delphinidae they naturally occupy the same baramin. In fact the BSG have listed 14 baramins or kinds of whales:

    Suborder Mysticeti

    Balaenidae
    Balaenopteridae
    Eschrichtiidae
    Neobalaenidae

    Suborder Odontoceti

    Delphinidae
    Monodontidae
    Phocoenidae
    Physeteridae
    Kogiidae
    Iniidae
    Lipotidae
    Pontoporiidae
    Planistidae
    Ziphidae

    Classification systems were not upset in the slightest by these pairings JC, real scientists examine all the evidence and adjust their conclusions accordingly. We don't get into a flap when something challenges our worldview. That's more of a religious thing.

    Finally, all this talk of baramins has got me thinking, am I the only one that has this picture in my head when I hear baramin:

    Brahmin_FO3.png



    Edit: One last comment on interfertility. Since, JC, you seem convinced of the interfertility of all members of the Felidae baramin, given that most of the combinations have not resulted in observed offspring, how can you equally make the proclamation that humans and apes are not interfertile on the same basis. You can't have it both ways.

    Thank you for the image you posted, I have been thinking the same thing since the first mention of the word, I thought I was alone!

    Btw thanks for everything else you have posted too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Btw thanks for everything else you have posted too.

    You're most welcome. :)

    Thank you for the image you posted, I have been thinking the same thing since the first mention of the word, I thought I was alone!

    Yes, you can't beat a good brahmin steak washed down with a Nuka-Cola and some Fancy Lads Snack Cakes to finish. That's good eatin'


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Evolutionists on this thread never back up what they say!!!

    robindch
    Have you forgotten oldrnwisr's post from two days ago?

    I think an apology is in order.
    I meant that Evolutionists on this thread never back up what they say about Evolution.

    ... and when their claims about Creation are examined closely ... they are also found to not 'stand up' either.:eek:

    ... as for the one post you refer to ... it just escaped me.

    ... and why should I apologise, just because I don't have enough time to answer the many (often repetitive) questions on this thread???

    Please remember there is only one of me ... and multitudes of ye!!!

    ... and if you want to look at candidates for apologies, I would suggest you look at the personal and prejudicial comments made all over this thread by your felllow Atheists about me!!!:(


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    ... so now its W2M Evolution i.e. Worm to Man Evolution !!!:)

    It's got a nice ring to it ... but little else going for it.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators Posts: 51,683 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    kindly explain why you are rejecting this latest data.

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Just a small point on this issue. JC claims that the ability to inter-breed is the "definitive" (if there were such a thing) test for sharing the same baramin.
    The definitive test is that two species are interfertile or they are interfertile with another common species. i.e. we can be certain that species a and b are the same Baramin if a and b can interbreed to any extent ... or if a and b can't interbreed with each other ... but both a and b can interbreed with species c.

    There are also many species that we provisionally believe to be within the same Baramin (for physical or genetic reasons) that don't interbreed.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    However, there's a couple of problems with that. First of all, there are a number of combinations within that "baramin" which have been shown not to be interfertile such as:


    Unsuccessful/Impossible Hybrids

    Margay (Leopardus wiedii) x Little Spotted Cat (Leopardus tigrinus) - No live offspring

    Cougar (Puma concolor) x Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) - One captive pairing resulting in four litters, none of the cubs survived beyond a few days.

    Domestic cat (F. silvestris catus) x Bobcat (Lynx rufus) - Genetic testing has shown the two species not to be interfertile

    Tigard - Male Tiger (Panthera Tigris) x Female Leopard (Panthera Pardus) - Has only ever resulted in stillborn cubs. The same is true of the converse pairing, the leoger.

    Then there are the combinations which have never been recorded making it impossible to determine whether the two species are interfertile or not:


    Unconfirmed/Unobserved Hybrids


    (F. silvestris catus) x (Puma yagouaroundi)
    (F. silvestris catus) x (Lynx canadensis)
    (F. silvestris catus) x (Otocolobus manul)
    (Leopardus wiedii) x (Leopardus pardalis)
    (F. silvestris catus) x (Uncia Uncia)

    This list is incredibly long but I think you get the point. In fact there are very few pairings such as the ligon which result in offspring which even come close to the scientific criteria of viable offspring. FYI, JC, a viable offspring is one that is born alive, grows to adulthood, is fertile and is numerous. Even the most successful felid hybrid pairings such as the ligon have only managed to fulfill the first three of these conditions because of the captive nature of the pairings.


    On another note, JC in the course of his usual waffle made this comment about interfertility in whales:



    First of all, the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) cross with a bottlenose dolphin has only ever resulted in two live offspring and there has only been one second generation offspring so I would hardly describe that pairing as viable.
    Please note that viable offspring don't have to be produced ... as long as offspring are produced (even if they are sterile or die at birth) ... they are the same Baramin.
    If fertile offspring are produced, they are not only the same Baramin ... they probably are the same species.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Secondly, the BSG have placed false killer whales, orcas and bottlenose dolphins in the same baramin because they are using family as an approximation for baramin as I have explained previously. As they are all members of the family delphinidae they naturally occupy the same baramin. In fact the BSG have listed 14 baramins or kinds of whales:

    Suborder Mysticeti

    Balaenidae
    Balaenopteridae
    Eschrichtiidae
    Neobalaenidae

    Suborder Odontoceti

    Delphinidae
    Monodontidae
    Phocoenidae
    Physeteridae
    Kogiidae
    Iniidae
    Lipotidae
    Pontoporiidae
    Planistidae
    Ziphidae

    Classification systems were not upset in the slightest by these pairings JC, real scientists examine all the evidence and adjust their conclusions accordingly. We don't get into a flap when something challenges our worldview. That's more of a religious thing.
    By any objective assessment ... this thread proves that ye are in a flap over almost everything!!!!
    ... so ye must be very religious people !!!!:)


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Edit: One last comment on interfertility. Since, JC, you seem convinced of the interfertility of all members of the Felidae baramin, given that most of the combinations have not resulted in observed offspring, how can you equally make the proclamation that humans and apes are not interfertile on the same basis. You can't have it both ways.
    All Felidae aren't interfertile ... so we cannot be definitive that they are all one Baramin on this basis ... but we can be definitive about the Cat species that are interfertile ... and we can also provisionally include other species on the basis of a very high degree of anatomical similarity.

    Apes and Humans aren't interfertile ... and they don't have a very high degree of anatomical similarity ... so they are neither definitivley nor provisionally the same Baramin.:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Thought this may of interest. It's from 2010, but hopefully some haven't seen it already.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1308772/Evolution-action-Scientists-discover-lizards-verge-leap-egg-laying-live-births.html

    Scientists have caught the process of evolution in action as a species of Australian lizard abandons egg-laying for live births.
    The variety of skink, which is snake-like with four tiny legs, has been found laying eggs along the coast of New South Wales.
    However, the same yellow-bellied three-toed lizard living in the colder mountainous region is giving birth to offspring like a mammal does.

    Don't laugh at it's little arms. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    One last point on this before I move on. The flood is depicted in the bible as having been enacted through rainfall. This creates a problem in and of itself.
    The Flood is depicted in the Bible as having two sources of water ... rain falling from above ... and (by far the greater) underground water bursting forth from below (the fountains of the great deep)!!!

    Gen 7:10-12
    10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

    11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    The story says that the mountain covered the tops of the mountains by 15 cubits. It also says that the rainfall lasted 40 days, with the flood lasting a further 150. That means the average rainfall at sea level over the course of 40 days is approx. 738000mm or 18450mm per day. This is 10 times more than the heaviest daily rainfall ever recorded. So, again JC, how do you explain this?
    The Flood was primarily a tectonic event ... with the break-up of the surface of the earth and the explosive release of vast quantities of underground water laiden with sediment from the rock breakup and saturated with hot Calcium Carbonate that acted as a cementing agent to form sedimentary rocks and entomb dead creatures that rapidly dissolved and fossilised over a matter of weeks.
    Your rainfall stats are irrelevant because the primary water source wasn't rain ... but underground oceans!!!
    The large artesian basins all over the world are the feint remnants of the pre-flood underground oceans.

    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    2b - The geological record

    The geological record problem is the biggest one that JC has to face up to. According to JC and his ilk:



    The thing is that there is a mountain of evidence which is either a) not explained by or b) directly contradicted by the flood story.

    The first of these is the presence of surface features deep within the geologic record. Like this core sample showing ten years of plant growth found 7000 feet down in Colorado:

    roots.gif
    ... so tree roots were buried under thousands of feet of sedimentary rock ... sounds like the result of one almighty flood of worldwide proportions to me!!!

    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    or ant burrows:

    burrowsGleannlochlakeRd4a.jpg
    Perfectly preserved by instant deposition of water-based mud and sediment ... sounds very Flood-like to me ... and certainly wasn't preserved by some process requiring millions of years to accomplish ... like Evolutionists would have us believe!!!
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    or even desiccation cracks:

    DesciccationCracksSilurianTW.jpg
    OK ... so a piece of land had dessication cracks ... was instantly preserved by deposition of water-based sediment ... again not in line with millions of years deposition.

    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    In addition to these, researchers have found river channels, meteorite impacts, dinosaur footprints and coral reefs with no explanation being offered by creationists for such features.
    river channels are to be expected in the aftermath of a Flood!!!
    Meterorite impact may have been the trigger for the worldwide tectonic event that was the Flood!!!
    Preserved Dinosaur (and Human footprints) are indicative of instant inundation ... and not gradualist processes measured in millimeters over millions of years.
    Coral reefs were preserved instantly where they stood by inundation with millions of tonnes of sediment ... and not grams of material per year over millions of years, as Evolutionists would have us believe!!
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Unfortunately, to deal with this area of the flood in any great detail would require vast pages and pages of discussion so it must be necessarily summary.

    The two problems as I have already stated are: questions not answered by the creationist position and inaccuracies in the creationist position. The questions are so numerous that they themselves would take up an inordinate amount of space but I'm going to include a short list as an example of what I'm talking about.

    Questions/problems created by the idea of a global flood:

    • Where did all the organic material (e.g. chalk, coal) in the fossil record come from? Chalk came from inorganic calcium carbonate suspended in the waters released from the underground resevoirs that created the Flood. Coal came from a combination of accumulated vegetation and aboitic carboniferous compounds released from deep within the Earth.
    • How was the heat from metamorphic events like limestone formation dissipated?In the water of the world oceans ... the resulting steam froze in the upper atmosphere ... and was deposited in the higher latitudes as massive snow storms ... that produced the Ice Age.
    • Why are there no modern plants, or, for that matter, human artifacts or other fossils found deep in the geologic column??Because the 'bottom' of the geological column was the ocean floor.
    • Why do smaller organisms dominate the lower strata instead of having floated to the upper strata if the flood were true?Because the 'bottom' of the geological column was the ocean floor ... and predominatly smaller organisms lived there ... and were buried there.
    • Why is the ecological information consistent within but not between layers in the fossil record?Any 'consistency' is in the imaginations of the beholders
    • How could varves have been formed so quickly?The same way that thousands of 'micro-layers' were laid down over a period of hours in the afermath of the Mount St Helens eruption.
    • Why do marine fossils vastly outnumber land animals in the fossil record?
    Because the sediment was primarily released from under the oceans therby killing and entombing marine creatures first. The sediment would have largely dissipated upon reaching land ... and land animals.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    The other problem is that when the creationists do decide to put forward a theory it is invariably wrong. Take the Karroo Formation for example. Both Henry Morris and Duane Gish have claimed that the Karroo formation contains the remains of 800 billion fossil animals laid down during the flood. The problem with that is that the mean animal size is that of a fox. So if all those fossils had been victims of the flood, there would have been at least 21 of them for every acre of land on earth.
    Do you have a reference for your assertion?
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    2c - Post-flood: Speciation and bio-diversity

    There are two principal problems here, the survival of the creatures taken aboard the ark and their extremely rapid speciation to account for the biodiversity we see today.


    The first problem is how these creatures survived post-flood? The bible story tells that the destruction wrought by the flood was complete and that the top of the mountains were covered by water for 150 days (at least). Water is not a very good conductor of light (to put it in those terms). The abyssal zone of the ocean where absolutely no light penetrates begins at about 2000m below the surface. Therefore any plants living on land would have been killed from lack of sunlight within a few days or weeks. So even when the flood waters receded, what were these animals on the ark going to eat?
    The minimum depth was 15 Cubits ... or about 20 feet ... so light penetration wouldn't be an issue over vast areas.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Secondly, the animal kingdom is made up of endless predator-prey relationships. How were such relationships maintained post-flood. It must have been the case that at least some of the animals on the ark would have died from starvation with only one pair of prey animals to feed on.
    Vegetation would grow rapidly ... due the high fertility of the soil following the Flood ... and there would be vast quantities of dead meat (from the dead animals) for the carnivores ... and for cooking by Noah.
    High up on Ararat any dead animals would be preserved for a very long time by the cold ... bacterial contamination also be minimised by the limestone-rich waters that killed them.

    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Thirdly, there is the rapid speciation of those that survive. There are currently about 8.7 million species on Earth as shown in the graph below:
    ... and 99.9% of them are plants, fungi and insects ... none of which were on the Ark ... only the air breathing land animals were on the Ark ... less than 20,000 species today ... and far less before the post-flood speciation event.
    For example, the global number of species of mammals, according to Schipper et al. (2008; Science 322:225-230), is only 5,487.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Now, no creationist has yet come forward to put a definite figure on the number of created kinds or what they were so it's hard to quantify a starting point, but even were it in the thousands (which is unlikely) the diversification even among kingdom Animalia is impossible to explain using the creationist viewpoint.
    THere are about 5,500 Mammal species, 9,000 Reptile species and 5,300 Amphibians ... so we're maxing out at 20,000 land based air-breathing species of animal.

    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Problem 3 - The universality of flood myth

    JC has pointed out, correctly for once, that there are a great many flood myths recorded throughout history.

    The problem for JC is that this is something which runs utterly counter to the idea of the Noachian flood as being a historical event.



    First of all, the account of the Noachian flood in Genesis is not what Christians claim that it is. Unlike the assertion of Christians that the pentateuch was written by Moses, the scholarly consensus since at least the first half of the 20th century was that the pentateuch was drawn from four distinct sources: the Elohist, the Yawhist, the Priestly and the Deuteronomist source. Then in the 1970s the increasing archaeological evidence prompted a revision in the consensus. Now the consensus holds that the Yahwhist source was written just before the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC, with the other portions following either during or after the exile.



    Immediately this undermines the veracity of the Noachian narrative since we have evidence of flood myths older than the one told in the Bible including:


    Epic of Gilgamesh (Sumerian) - 13th century BC
    Manu (Hinduism) - 8th century BC
    Great Flood (China) - 3rd millennium BC
    Tiddalik (Aborigine) - 10000 BC


    We also have flood myths which bear no resemblance to the narrative presented in Genesis, which contradicts JC's assertion that they borrowed from the story of Noah's flood. Such myths include "The Entrance to the Fourth World" in Hopi mythology, The Legend of Trenten Vilu in Chilean mythology and Tawhaki in Maori mythology.
    All describing the same event ... some more accurately than others.

    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Oh, and clever_name, I know that JC will never learn or take on board any of the points I have made. I learned that lesson after my first few posts in this thread. However, because of the occasional visitor who is genuinely curious about this debate its important to refute the crap that JC manages to come out with.
    If that was your objective ... you have failed miserably!!!:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    The Flood?
    Where did the water come from?
    Where did it go?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    stoneill wrote: »
    The Flood?
    Where did the water come from?
    Where did it go?

    Runaway subduction. Of course.
    One specific form of runaway subduction is called "catastrophic plate tectonics", proposed by geophysicist John Baumgardner and supported by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.[57] This holds the rapid plunge of former oceanic plates into the mantle caused by an unknown trigger mechanism which increased local mantle pressures to the point that its viscosity dropped several magnitudes according to known properties of mantle silicates. Once initiated, sinking plates caused the spread of low viscosity throughout the mantle resulting in runaway mantle convection and catastrophic tectonic motion as continents were dragged across the surface of the earth. Once the former ocean plates, which are thought to be denser than the mantle, reached the bottom of the mantle an equilibrium was reached. Pressures dropped, viscosity increased, runaway mantle convection stopped, leaving the surface of the earth rearranged. Proponents point to subducted slabs in the mantle which are still relatively cool, which they regard as evidence that they have not been there for millions of years of temperature equilibration


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Anyone who seriously thinks subduction can explain any part of flood 'geology' needs their head seen to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    J C wrote: »
    The definitive test is that two species are interfertile or they are interfertile with another common species. i.e. we can be certain that species a and b are the same Baramin if a and b can interbreed to any extent ... or if a and b can't interbreed with each other ... but both a and b can interbreed with species c.

    But there's the problem with your list JC. You can't make such determinations about interfertility with such scant evidence. I think a little lesson in combinatorics will help resolve this.

    There are 42 members in the baramin Felidae which you posted the other day. Given the potentially different outcomes of converse pairings (i.e. male tiger x female lion vs. male lion x female tiger), we must consider each pairing individually. Thus the total number of pairings is given by:

    %5CLARGE%5C%21N%253Dx%255E%257B2%257D-x.gif

    where X is the number of members and N is the number of pairings. Therefore the number of possible pairings in the Felidae Baramin is 1722. However, we only have evidence of successful pairings in 67 of these cases. So you, or more correctly, the BSG are determining interfertility on the basis of a 3.8% success rate. Smells like bull**** to me. Of course, the BSG, like many other creationists aren't really engaged in serious work, all they've done is lift the established taxonomic system and twisted it slightly to suit their own purposes.

    J C wrote: »
    There are also many species that we provisionally believe to be within the same Baramin (for physical or genetic reasons) that don't interbreed.

    Oh, shifting the goalposts, I see. Well that's not going to help you this time. Even someone with a basic knowledge of biology can realise that physical reasons are not a sufficient guide to connect two animals. I mean if that were true then dlofnep's example here would mean that these two share the same baramin.

    AmgQOfrCEAAKQ8O.png




    J C wrote: »
    Please note that viable offspring don't have to be produced ... as long as offspring are produced (even if they are sterile or die at birth) ... they are the same Baramin.
    If fertile offspring are produced, they are not only the same Baramin ... they probably are the same species.

    But that's the thing isn't it. Viable offspring is important because it's the dividing line of species. Species is the only distinction of importance in biology since this is the line at which speciation occurs and macroevolution kicks in. The other higher levels of taxonomic classification are very helpful but that's all they are, a means to organise and categorise the vast number of species alive today and the evolutionary path they have taken over the last 3.8 billion years.




    J C wrote: »
    All Felidae aren't interfertile ... so we cannot be definitive that they are all one Baramin on this basis ... but we can be definitive about the Cat species that are interfertile ... and we can also provisionally include other species on the basis of a very high degree of anatomical similarity.

    Hold on a second, you're completely contradicting yourself. What cat species are you talking about, lynx, panthera, uncia which?


    J C wrote: »
    Apes and Humans aren't interfertile ... and they don't have a very high degree of anatomical similarity ... so they are neither definitivley nor provisionally the same Baramin.

    I've already explained this to you JC. You're making the determination that the members of the Felidae baramin all belong together despite very little corroborating evidence to support such a conclusion and yet you drawing the opposite conclusion about humans and apes based on the same lack of evidence. That makes no sense whatsoever.


    In any event, this baramin horse**** is just a smokescreen on JC's part and a bad one at that. The idea of baramins doesn't stand or fall on the basis of interfertility (even though its nonsense in and of itself). The real problem with baraminology is best described graphically.

    The familiar picture of the evolutionary tree of life looks something like this:

    tree.gif


    whereas the baraminic tree or the "creationist orchard" as some have called it looks like this:

    EE.tree2_0.jpg

    In fact, Kurt Wise, one of the creationists responsible for the early work in baraminology stated:

    "I intend to replace the evolutionary tree with the creationist orchard, separately created, separately planted by God."

    So, the only thing necessary to completely undermine this view of life is to show where any two of these groups share a common ancestor and this has been found again and again.

    To best illustrate this I'm going to reuse an example I posted in the other evolution thread.

    This is an image of human chromosome 2 next to chimp chromosomes 12 and 13.

    hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

    This image depicts a chromosomal fusion event in our past. Our common ancestor with chimps had 24 chromosomes. At some point, the two chromosomes on the right became fused in us to create our chromosome 2 but remained unchanged (more or less) in other apes. I won't go into the details of how this was confirmed again (read the other thread if you want, or the original research) but needless to say that this is a powerful indication of common ancestry. The cliched creationist response of "oh, no that's common design" just doesn't work. We're not talking about a shared trait among humans and chimps. We're talking about an ancestral trait which diverged due to a chromosomal fusion event. Common design does not explain this.

    Getting back to the point, we have found repeated evidence of common ancestry among diverse groups of creatures such as a common ancestor of whales and hippos which again occupy two separate baramins according to creationists. This idea of kinds is fundamentally flawed and no amount of linguistic intrepidity is going to change that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    RichieC wrote: »
    Runaway subduction. Of course.
    One specific form of runaway subduction is called "catastrophic plate tectonics", proposed by geophysicist John Baumgardner and supported by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.[57] This holds the rapid plunge of former oceanic plates into the mantle caused by an unknown trigger mechanism which increased local mantle pressures to the point that its viscosity dropped several magnitudes according to known properties of mantle silicates. Once initiated, sinking plates caused the spread of low viscosity throughout the mantle resulting in runaway mantle convection and catastrophic tectonic motion as continents were dragged across the surface of the earth. Once the former ocean plates, which are thought to be denser than the mantle, reached the bottom of the mantle an equilibrium was reached. Pressures dropped, viscosity increased, runaway mantle convection stopped, leaving the surface of the earth rearranged. Proponents point to subducted slabs in the mantle which are still relatively cool, which they regard as evidence that they have not been there for millions of years of temperature equilibration

    Random scientific word generator?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Random scientific word generator?

    monomorphic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    oldrnwisr, thanks for the time you put into your posts. Keep it up!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    J C wrote: »
    The Flood is depicted in the Bible as having two sources of water ... rain falling from above ... and (by far the greater) underground water bursting forth from below (the fountains of the great deep)!!!

    Gen 7:10-12
    10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

    11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.


    Fair enough, but if you're trying to convince us that the Noachian flood actually happened then some physical evidence not quotes would be more helpful.

    J C wrote: »
    The Flood was primarily a tectonic event ... with the break-up of the surface of the earth and the explosive release of vast quantities of underground water laiden with sediment from the rock breakup and saturated with hot Calcium Carbonate that acted as a cementing agent to form sedimentary rocks and entomb dead creatures that rapidly dissolved and fossilised over a matter of weeks.
    Your rainfall stats are irrelevant because the primary water source wasn't rain ... but underground oceans!!!
    The large artesian basins all over the world are the feint remnants of the pre-flood underground oceans.


    Oh, so you're arguing in favour of the hydroplate theory then. This, for those unfamiliar,was developed by creationist Walt Brown and outlined in his book "In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the flood". I think that the problem with this theory is best summed up in three words: Rock doesn't float.

    The first problem is that unless the earth's crust were a solid shell with no cracks or fissures prior, to the flood, the water would have escaped instantly. The density of water is 1 g/cm^3 while the density of those rocks which make up the crust such as granite, basalt etc. lie in the range 2.5 - 3.0 g/cm^3. Any crack in the crust would have resulted in the water escaping long before Noah's flood.

    Even assuming a solid crust, this doesn't solve the problem of a layer of water ten miles below the surface. First of all, the water at that depth would be well in excess of 100°C. This would create tremendous pressure given that steam occupies about 1700 times more volume than the water which produced it. So for the amount of water that you're suggesting, say 1.6 miles worth, the pressure created by maintaining that water at that temperature would be immense. That create's a problem since the rocks making up the crust, like all ceramic materials have very poor tensile strength. That volume of water at that depth would have easily shattered any hard ceramic shell encasing it.

    Also, there is the problem of temperature. The temperature of the crust at the boundary where it meets the mantle ranges from 200° - 400°C. Any eruption of water from that depth into the atmosphere would have killed Noah and anyone else unfortunate enough to be on the surface of the planet.

    Finally, like all of your contentions, JC we don't see any evidence of this. The escaping water as it broke through the crust would also have carried basaltic deposits with it, meaning we should find unusual deposits of such materials but we don't.

    J C wrote: »
    ... so tree roots were buried under thousands of feet of sedimentary rock ... sounds like the result of one almighty flood of worldwide proportions to me!!!

    Less, of the histrionics please JC. It really doesn't help. But maybe that's all you've got to contribute to this conversation. I, on the other hand have evidence, like this:

    A 50-million-year-old fossil forest from Strathcona Fiord, Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada: evidence for a warm polar climate

    Fossil forests from the lower Cretaceous of Alexander Island, Antarctica

    Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from fossil forests in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia

    J C wrote: »
    Perfectly preserved by instant deposition of water-based mud and sediment ... sounds very Flood-like to me ... and certainly wasn't preserved by some process requiring millions of years to accomplish ... like Evolutionists would have us believe!!!

    Again with the waffle. Evidence really would be more helpful. You know, like this:

    Fossil nest of sweat bees from a miocene paleosol, Rusinga Island, Western Kenya

    Trace fossils and bioturbation: the other fossil record

    Upper paleozoic trace fossils from the Gilf Kebir-Abu Ras area in southwestern Egypt



    J C wrote: »
    OK ... so a piece of land had dessication cracks ... was instantly preserved by deposition of water-based sediment ... again not in line with millions of years deposition.


    river channels are to be expected in the aftermath of a Flood!!!
    Meterorite impact may have been the trigger for the worldwide tectonic event that was the Flood!!!
    Preserved Dinosaur (and Human footprints) are indicative of instant inundation ... and not gradualist processes measured in millimeters over millions of years.
    Coral reefs were preserved instantly where they stood by inundation with millions of tonnes of sediment ... and not grams of material per year over millions of years, as Evolutionists would have us believe!!

    OK, I'm getting mighty tired of dealing with this ****. Put up or shut up JC. Either back up your ridiculous assertions with proper peer-reviewed evidence or admit that you're talking through your arse.


    J C wrote: »
    Do you have a reference for your assertion?

    As it happens, I do.

    The original creationist claim was made by Whitcomb & Morris in their book "The Genesis Flood", 1961, p. 160.

    Their claim was subsequently and thoroughly dissected by Robert Schwadewald in his work "Six 'Flood arguments' creationists can't answer", published in Creation/Evolution, 1982.


    J C wrote: »
    The minimum depth was 15 Cubits ... or about 20 feet ... so light penetration wouldn't be an issue over vast areas.

    Hold on, you've previously claimed that the Earth was covered to a depth of 1.6 miles. So low lying areas would have been under several hundred meters of water, plenty of pressure and lack of light to extinguish all plant life.

    J C wrote: »
    ... and 99.9% of them are plants, fungi and insects ... none of which were on the Ark ... only the air breathing land animals were on the Ark ... less than 20,000 species today ... and far less before the post-flood speciation event.
    For example, the global number of species of mammals, according to Schipper et al. (2008; Science 322:225-230), is only 5,487.

    THere are about 5,500 Mammal species, 9,000 Reptile species and 5,300 Amphibians ... so we're maxing out at 20,000 land based air-breathing species of animal.

    Are you completely dense or is it just some kind of unfortunate accident that you keep spewing such crap.

    I draw your attention to the highlighted portion of your quote above. What exactly about air-breathing land animals excludes insects. Insects do in fact, breathe in that they rely on oxygen and perform gas exchange within their bodies. It's called a tracheal system FYI. I mean there are 22,000 species of ants and 400,000 species of beetles alone. What about them? Oh and by the way, the Bible says to gather creatures which have the "breath of life" in them meaning alive, not meaning breathing. There's a big difference, but since you're only familiar with the KJV, I can understand the confusion.

    J C wrote: »
    All describing the same event ... some more accurately than others.

    Yes, and some written down thousands of years before the one you're advancing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    sephir0th wrote: »
    oldrnwisr, thanks for the time you put into your posts. Keep it up!

    Thank you very much. I find it great to be able to discuss evolution and as I've already said it's important to refute the kind of creationist bollix that JC comes out with, in case some innocent might happen across this thread and be taken in by it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    As far as I remember from my reading of this thread, everyone who happens along it tends to end up thinking J C is a loon with no evidence for any of his claims. Even dead one started questioning his lack of evidence and question dodging, and he believes the moon landings were an evil decadent western hoax!


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Thank you very much. I find it great to be able to discuss evolution and as I've already said it's important to refute the kind of creationist bollix that JC comes out with, in case some innocent might happen across this thread and be taken in by it.

    I'm pretty sure I've learned more about evolution from reading your posts than I did at Uni :o

    The infuriating thing is he's going to take the evidence you put up and somehow bastardise it in an attempt to claim it supports creationism.

    Can I also point out once more that this notion that every bit of sedimentary rock on earth came from one flood should be obviously untrue to anyone who's studied any large sedimentary formation in any detail whatsoever. There is nothing, nothing to suggest these rocks were deposited in one flood. We just wouldn't see the kind of layering that we see. We wouldn't see everything organised chronologically, that's for sure. It's horseshit of the highest order and anyone claiming nonsense like this is true should be ashamed of themselves.

    J C, it's also pretty laughable that you claim 'Microbe to man' (as you like to call it) evolution over millions of years is a ridiculous theory, while claiming the amount of speciation required in the few thousand years required to support this 'Baramin' rubbish is a plausible scientific theory. Do you realise how much you're contradicting yourself here? Do you even think before you post?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators Posts: 51,683 ✭✭✭✭Delirium




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Does that mean I can finally hug a Gorilla?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Does that mean I can finally hug a Gorilla?

    Do you realise how much this is going to set him off?

    ;)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Does that mean I can finally hug a Gorilla?

    Hug - Yes.
    Cuddle - Yes.
    Kiss -If the gorilla consents but no tongues.
    Breed with - No.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Hug - Yes.
    Cuddle - Yes.
    Kiss -If the gorilla consents but no tongues.
    Breed with - No.

    Then obviously the two species aren't from the same baramin. Duh.

    :rolleyes:


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Then obviously the two species aren't from the same baramin. Duh.

    :rolleyes:

    That and the fact that the silverback would rip off the head off anyone who tried - this is how rugby was originally invented.
    All the Web Ellis picking up the ball and running with it malarky is just creationist nonsense. In reality it started when a horny homo erectus got frisky in the mountain mists and wham - the world's first maul.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    That and the fact that the silverback would rip off the head off anyone who tried - this is how rugby was originally invented.
    All the Web Ellis picking up the ball and running with it malarky is just creationist nonsense. In reality it started when a horny homo erectus got frisky in the mountain mists and wham - the world's first maul.

    Careful, he might think you're being serious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Careful, he might think you're being serious.
    As W2M (Worm to Man) Evolution has it's funny sides ... I never take you guys seriously!!!:):D
    I'll reply to oldrnwisr's substantial posting at the weekend.
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by dlofnep
    Does that mean I can finally hug a Gorilla?

    Originally Posted by Bannasidhe
    Hug - Yes.
    Cuddle - Yes.
    Kiss -If the gorilla consents but no tongues.
    Breed with - No.

    Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob
    Then obviously the two species aren't from the same baramin. Duh.
    You guys are starting to learn Creation Science ... slowly ... and against your wills ... but ye are learning it nontheless!!!
    I was a bit like that myself, when I first discovered that I wasn't an Ape with a large Cranium ... I went into denial and had a personal faith crisis ... in W2M Evolution.:D
    ... but my pride kept me from admitting that I wasn't a descendent of a Pond-thing ... or a Monkey's Cousin!!!:D

    The peace and love of Jesus Christ to you all.:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    I'm pretty sure I've learned more about evolution from reading your posts than I did at Uni :o
    There obviously isn't much real stuff to learn in the first place!!:)
    The infuriating thing is he's going to take the evidence you put up and somehow bastardise it in an attempt to claim it supports creationism.
    The bastardisation of the evidence is on the W2M Evolutionist side of the house ... I'm just 'un-bastardising' it!!!:)
    Can I also point out once more that this notion that every bit of sedimentary rock on earth came from one flood should be obviously untrue to anyone who's studied any large sedimentary formation in any detail whatsoever. There is nothing, nothing to suggest these rocks were deposited in one flood. We just wouldn't see the kind of layering that we see.
    This is what happened after the Mount St Helens Volcanic and water explosion ...
    Quote:- "the bottom layer formed in 6 hours on 18th May 1980, the middle layer was formed on 12th June 1980 and the top layer by mud flow in March 1982,
    Please note the scale of the deposition ... and the evidence of layers ... that would be called varves ... but for the fact that everybody saw them forming!!!

    St_Helens_strata.jpg

    We wouldn't see everything organised chronologically, that's for sure. It's horseshit of the highest order and anyone claiming nonsense like this is true should be ashamed of themselves.
    We don't see this ... except in out imaginations ... we see billions of dead things buried catastrophically in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth ... how we choose to interpret this ... is largely down to our worldview!!
    J C, it's also pretty laughable that you claim 'Microbe to man' (as you like to call it) evolution over millions of years is a ridiculous theory, while claiming the amount of speciation required in the few thousand years required to support this 'Baramin' rubbish is a plausible scientific theory. Do you realise how much you're contradicting yourself here? Do you even think before you post?
    I've upgraded it to Worm to Man Evolution in deference to the 'discovery' of out supposed worm ancestor!!!:)
    ... and the difference is that Creationists postulate that speciation occurred rapidly using pre-existing intelligently designed CFSI ... which is entirely possible (because of the intelligent input) ... while Evolutionists postulate that speciation occurred via a series of 'happy accidents' ... which is completely implausible.
    ... and how do ye explain polystrate fossils ... like this tree fossil extending through supposed millions of years of rock layers??
    polystrate_tree.jpg
    Love ye all ... (i.e. I wish you all the very best that this life ... and eternal life can give).;):)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    The Flood is depicted in the Bible as having two sources of water ... rain falling from above ... and (by far the greater) underground water bursting forth from below (the fountains of the great deep)!!!
    It's kind of reassuring that in order to be a nutter Christian you don't just have to abandon everything we know about biology - physics goes out the window too.

    I look forward to chemistry being scrapped too as soon as it is found to disprove some 2500 year old yarn.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement