"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Yes ... its a record of Flood Burial.

Again, open a ****ing book.

... go on ... and stop looking through your fingers ... and 'man up' ... and face the fact that fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were practically all laid down under water ... in a worldwide flood.

Agreed.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

And this saddens you. That's ok - there are groups that can help you with this.

It was a frown of disapproval.
... and the fact that you thought that it was a sad smiley tells us more about you ... than you might want people to know!!!

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

It was a frown of disapproval.
... and the fact that you thought that it was a sad smiley tells us more about you ... than you might want people to know!!!

It was clearly a sad smiley face.
It's ok J C. You don't need to hide your true feeling from us. We don't judge.

xxx

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

... go on ... and stop looking through your fingers ... and 'man up' ... and face the fact that fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were practically all laid down under water ... in a worldwide flood.

Agreed.

... you're getting there ... slowly ... but you're getting there nonetheless!!!:)

... so it was laid down under water ... that inundated ... flowed ... eh ... em ... and flooded ... worldwide!!!!:eek:

... you can now 'come out' as a Creationist to yourself ... but unfortunately you cannot tell anybody else, that knows you ... because it's a love that dare not speak it's name!!!:eek:

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It was clearly a sad smiley face.
It's ok J C. You don't need to hide your true feeling from us. We don't judge.

xxx

It was a frown smiley ... fact ...
You guys seem to have a serious problem with facts.

Perhaps that's why ye don't know where you Evolutionist facts stop ... and your Evolutionist fantasies begin.:)

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

It was a frown of disapproval.
... and the fact that you thought that it was a sad smiley tells us more about you ... than you might want people to know!!!

Hey it's ok.. We're here for you.

Sarky

Perhaps we're just mocking your embarrassing lack of knowledge on every subject that has ever been raised in this thread.

Seriously. Read a book that wasn't written by an ignorant, fraudulent creationist hack.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Seriously. Read a book that wasn't written by an ignorant, fraudulent creationist hack.

Never met an ignorant Creationist ...
... but, when it comes to Evolutionist novels ... I have a whole library full of them!!!!:)

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Sarky wrote: »

Seriously. Read a book that wasn't written by an ignorant, fraudulent creationist hack.

Never met an ignorant Creationist ...

Ha. You haven't met any at all, then. Or you aren't being entirely truthful. Shock horror.

... but, when it comes to Evolutionist novels ... I have a whole library full of them!!!!:)

Perhaps you could try reading one? Because you obviously know nothing about it.

But that robust Mathematical definition of cfsi still hasn't been presented. You should probably do that first.

Sarky

Never met an ignorant Creationist ...

Ha. You haven't met any at all, then. Or you aren't being entirely truthful. Shock horror.

... but, when it comes to Evolutionist novels ... I have a whole library full of them!!!!:)

Perhaps you could try reading one? Because you obviously know nothing about evolution. There are kid's books that could correct most of the nonsense you've posted. They have pictures and everything.

But that robust Mathematical definition of cfsi still hasn't been presented. You should probably do that first.

Teg Veece

J C wrote: »

If they are true rock-bound fossils then they probably were killed by the Flood ... but if they are found as bones in caves, then they are likely to be post-diluvian (and possibly quite recent) in origin.

Thanks for answering.

I didn't realise that Creationists believed in the Flood and Ark theory.
Does it stand up to much scrutiny though? Lets ignore the logistics of getting 2 of every creature in existance into the ark for a bit. How did Kangaroos end up in Australia if the species effectively restarted with just 2 specimens roughly 4000 years ago at some place in the Middle East.

Wouldn't there be evidence of their migration across Asia? What did they do when they got to the Indian Ocean. I know they can jump quite a distance but an over an ocean?

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

If they are true rock-bound fossils then they probably were killed by the Flood ... but if they are found as bones in caves, then they are likely to be post-diluvian (and possibly quite recent) in origin.

Wait, you actually believe a Flood covered the whole planet, and oddly enough, nobody seemed to have noticed?

I mean, surely some Asians, North Americans, South Americans, Scandinavians, Europeans, Africans, Aboriginals or someone may have noticed this world wide flood.

C'mon JC, I thought you said you were educated.

Bannasidhe

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wait, you actually believe a Flood covered the whole planet, and oddly enough, nobody seemed to have noticed?

I mean, surely some Asians, North Americans, South Americans, Scandinavians, Europeans, Africans, Aboriginals or someone may have noticed this world wide flood.

C'mon JC, I thought you said you were educated.

You don't need to travel so far Sonics - our own past will do.

According to the Lebar Gabála Érenn (Book of Invasions) - the origin story of the Irish, (the oldest surviving copy of which was written before the Norman invasion in the 12th century by monks) the Ancient Gaels competently failed to notice any flood.. and consequently also failed to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

They were, apparently, on a westward migration lasting many centuries from Scythia (modern day Kazakhstan, southern Russia and Ukraine and the northern Caucasus area, including Georgia) to...well...Ireland bizarrely enough.

While they were spending a decade or three in Egypt the Gaelic king's son married Noah's daughter - so presumably missed the flood, even though they were in the general Middle eastern Area at the time.

The happy couple then took over Spain and their sons invaded Ireland where they fought the People of the Goddess Danu (a.k.a De Danaan) and eventually turned into the Irish (and Scottish).

Thing I always wonder is - if Noah and his family were the only ones to survive - where did this Gaelic king living in Egypt whose son married Noah's daughter come from? And he wasn't alone - there was a whole load of proto-Paddy's with him...enough to conquer Spain....

The Mad Hatter

Sarky wrote: »

But that robust Mathematical definition of cfsi still hasn't been presented. You should probably do that first.

2 + 2 = God

J C

Teg Veece wrote: »

Thanks for answering.

I didn't realise that Creationists believed in the Flood and Ark theory.
Does it stand up to much scrutiny though? Lets ignore the logistics of getting 2 of every creature in existance into the ark for a bit. How did Kangaroos end up in Australia if the species effectively restarted with just 2 specimens roughly 4000 years ago at some place in the Middle East.

Wouldn't there be evidence of their migration across Asia? What did they do when they got to the Indian Ocean. I know they can jump quite a distance but an over an ocean?

Firstly, it was only land animals that were on the Ark ... and only a pair of each Kind ... and probably juveniles ... which would greatly reduce the numbers and the space and feed requirements. It is thought that there was a period of rapid speciation, following the Flood, during which our modern species developed. For example, the Large Cat Kind Pair gave rise to all of the large cat species like Lions, Tigers, Panthers, etc.

It is thought that Kangaroos migrated over a number of years to Australia ... crossing the land-bridges that existed during the Ice Age that followed in the immediate aftermath of the Flood. Equally, Human introduction of Kangaroo to Australia ... and their protection until establishment cannot be ruled out.
There is a widespread, but mistaken, belief that marsupials are found only in Australia, thus supporting the idea that they must have evolved there. However, living marsupials, opossums, are found also in North and South America, and fossil marsupials have been found on every continent including Europe.
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=0e3b9b63-aa0c-4748-8545-207baa5b020a&sponsor=
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091106103510.htm

Here is what evolutionists themselves say happened (My Comments in Red):-
Quote:-
The best evidence is that marsupials originated Asia, (Mount Ararat) migrated to North America via a land bridge, and that they co-existed with placental mammals in the northern hemisphere for some time. Marsupials colonized first South America, and from there moved on to Antarctica and then Australia. (I think they colonised both continents simultaneously over land bridges and/or Human introduction) The marsupial populations in Asia and North America went extinct, possibly as a result of competition with placental mammals among other factors, and the populations on southern continents remained in those safe havens.(Agreed)
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/marsupials
Equally, monotremes were once thought to be unique to Australia, but the discovery of a fossil platypus tooth in South America has proven this to be false.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117831.200-duckbilled-platypus-had-a-south-american-cousin-.html
The evidence is all there ... and consistent with the Flood Hypothesis.

Delirium

what "kind" are kangaroos?

MrPudding

koth wrote: »

what "kind" are kangaroos?

In fact, could we have a complete list of kinds please?

And JC, when you say "rapid speciation" just how rapid are you talking about? You beleive that we went form whatever was on the ark to what we have now in 4000 years. Is that correct?

MrP

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wait, you actually believe a Flood covered the whole planet, and oddly enough, nobody seemed to have noticed?

I mean, surely some Asians, North Americans, South Americans, Scandinavians, Europeans, Africans, Aboriginals or someone may have noticed this world wide flood.

C'mon JC, I thought you said you were educated.

There are over 500 stories/myths (amongst peoples all over the World) that recall a worldwide flood disaster. It is thought that they are all a common 'folk memory' of Noahs Flood with accounts of varying corruption of the real account due to the passage of time and repeated telling.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

J C

koth wrote: »

what "kind" are kangaroos?

The Kangaroo Kind.

robindch

^^^ Brilliant!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The Kangaroo Kind.

LOL

but seriously, what kind is a kangaroo?

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

2 + 2 = God

It's actually 1 + 1 +1 = God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Doc_Savage

J C wrote: »

There are over 500 stories/myths (amongst peoples all over the World)

don't forget that a legend is defined as an unverified story, and shouldn't/can't be relied on as historical fact.

leg·end (ljnd)
n.1.
An unverified story handed down from earlier times

And also.... 500? please find 10% of these? that's all I ask! I couldn't even find 2%...

Verify your statements please.

Teg Veece

J C wrote: »

It is thought that Kangaroos migrated over a number of years to Australia ... crossing the land-bridges that existed during the Ice Age that followed in the immediate aftermath of the Flood. Equally, Human introduction of Kangaroo to Australia ... and their protection until establishment cannot be ruled out.

Does the image of kangaroos and koala bears crossing frozen oceans during an Ice Age not strike you as a bit odd though?

J C wrote: »

Firstly, it was only land animals that were on the Ark ... and only a pair of each Kind ... and probably juveniles ... which would greatly reduce the numbers and the space and feed requirements. It is thought that there was a period of rapid speciation, following the Flood, during which our modern species developed. For example, the Large Cat Kind Pair gave rise to all of the large cat species like Lions, Tigers, Panthers, etc.

I'm a bit confused about this part. I thought that creationists believed that two monkey mates could only ever produce another monkey. I think you use the analogy of a stamp in one of your videos saying no matter how manner times you stamp it, it will still produce the same image. Doesn't a large cat pair producing every other type of large cat species eventually not fly in the face of all that?

Last question for now, I'm genuinely intrigued by this. I was looking on some websites regarding Noah's Ark after you mentioned it and noticed that a lot of them say Dinosaurs were also on the Ark. Is this the general consensus among creationists or are those websites in the tiny minority?

Thanks again for your answers. It's interesting hearing an alternative viewpoint on some of these issues.

dlofnep

Is a Wallaby Kangaroo kind? And why did all marsupials go to Australia? Did they all go together as a big gang? What did the Thylacine eat along the way? There was no Ice age in the past 6,000 years, so how did they get there? Perhaps they hitched a ride on the back of a Whale? Sure why not? Makes about as much sense as the rest of your posts..

Sarky

Please continue, J C. Your posts are obviously well-written and contain thought-provoking points, and are in no way a hilarious conglomeration of really stupid attempts to make science out of a millennia-old collection of shoddily-written books trying to convince tribes of desert goat herders that they had a manifest destiny.

Odds J C will not see the sarcasm? I'd say 50/50, at least.

MrPudding

Sarky wrote: »

Please continue, J C. Your posts are obviously well-written and contain thought-provoking points, and are in no way a hilarious conglomeration of really stupid attempts to make science out of a millennia-old collection of shoddily-written books trying to convince tribes of desert goat herders that they had a manifest destiny.

Odds J C will not see the sarcasm? I'd say 50/50, at least.

It is like having a discussion with a 9 year old, though I think most 9 year old kids would laugh at the ark stuff.

MrP

clever_name

J C wrote: »

Firstly, it was only land animals that were on the Ark ... and only a pair of each Kind ... and probably juveniles ... which would greatly reduce the numbers and the space and feed requirements.

JC I am disappointed in you, rookie mistake you made there giving away the fact that you have no idea whats in the bible.

Genesis 7:2-3 - Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

This is where you got your facts from I believe, you should have read past the first few lines.

http://www.poppyfields.net/poppy/songs/twobytwo.html


I know you make up most of the stuff in your posts on the fly but try to stay in character and get the bible stuff right.

dlofnep

J C hasn't read the bible yet you see, because if he did - he'd be an atheist too. The bible is the most compelling argument in favour of atheism.

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

It is like having a discussion with a 9 year old, though I think most 9 year old kids would laugh at the ark stuff.

MrP

I know a 5 year old who laughs at the Ark idea.

She insists it's just a story as they would need a lot of 'grass and stuff' for the not meat eating animals most of whom would be eaten by the meat eating animals anyway unless there were really big strong cages and all those animals would make sooo much pooh that all of the people would get very, very sicky and might even die and how did they keep the elephants calm and stop them charging around and making the boat sink specially when there were two different kinds of elephants on the boat? Wouldn't the four elephants have been very scared to have lions and tigers and pumas and cheetahs so close to them so they would panic and then the horses would panic - have you ever seen a horse panic? There is no stopping them, they just totally freak out!

Edit: Just seen clever_name's timely reminder re: Genesis 7:2-3 - Assuming elephants are 'clean' - I shall have to tell the 5 year old there were apparently up to 28 elephants on the boat (but only 2 pigs...?) . Somehow I think that nugget is not going to challenge her insistence it's just a story.