"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

koth wrote: »

I see you still don't understand that apes and humans had a shared ancestor, not that humans and apes were inter-breeding.

The two tend to go together.:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No problem, as soon as someone gives an example of how CFSI and flood 'geology' aren't complete and utter drivel.

It is of course drivel but you should be able to backup what you say.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Vodka?

That too !!!:)

koth wrote: »

oh dear, you actually think blue whales and dolphins inter-breed.:eek:

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.

... as for Blue Whales ... their inter-breeding potential may take some time to determine!!:)

... there is a job there for Sarky ... should he choose to accept!!!:D

beerbuddy wrote: »

It is of course drivel but you should be able to backup what you say.

It isn't drivel ... and Evolutionists on this thread never back up what they say!!!
They make unfounded accusations against me ... and unfounded claims about both evolution ... and creation.

Sarky wrote: »

J C's logic must be something like "Vodka is made from potatoes. Potatoes have ears. Ears to listen!" Except that's cauliflowers. But at least he's consistently wrong about everything.

Or possibly he's thinking of Mr. Potatohead.

You must be hitting the Scotch again.:)

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:





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.

clever_name wrote: »

Btw thanks for everything else you have posted too.

You're most welcome.

clever_name wrote: »

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'

koth wrote: »

Worm-like sea creature identified as ‘earliest human ancestor’

... 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.:)

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.:)

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:

... 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:

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:

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!!!:)