Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.

Obliq

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Cabaal wrote: »

I mean, surely the Vatican can't be wrong? :pac:

I know. Severely disillusioned by that myself Send in a witch then. I'd go in and get it for ya, but I'm a bit busy giving my neighbours the evil eye and cursing the pope today, sorry....

Terrlock

Wow is this a thread about the film Noah?

Maybe you should start a separate thread just for berating anything JC's says.


I for one am looking forward to this film to see it's take on it.

Hopefully it will stay true to the biblical account of it.

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

Wow is this a thread about the film Noah?

Maybe you should start a separate thread just for berating anything JC's says.


I for one am looking forward to this film and see it's take on it.

No one is "berating" JC people are just pointing out the many many MANY errors in his fairy tales.

Obliq

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

Wow is this a thread about the film Noah?

Maybe you should start a separate thread just for berating anything JC's says.


I for one am looking forward to this film to see it's take on it.

Hopefully it will stay true to the biblical account of it.

Y'know, I was starting to think JC was the only creationist on here, but perhaps he's the only one with the courage of his convictions (even if I do think those convictions are wrong). Where were you when JC was giving it loads, eh?

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

Wow is this a thread about the film Noah?

Maybe you should start a separate thread just for berating anything JC's says.


I for one am looking forward to this film to see it's take on it.

Hopefully it will stay true to the biblical account of it.

So you are hoping the fairy tale is true to the book. I felt the same about Harry Potter and Lord of the rings

Delirium

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

Wow is this a thread about the film Noah?

Maybe you should start a separate thread just for berating anything JC's says.


I for one am looking forward to this film to see it's take on it.

Hopefully it will stay true to the biblical account of it.

Indeed. Let people see God kill every animal, man, woman and child with the exception of the occupants of a single boat.

Turtwig

koth wrote: »

Indeed. Let people see God kill every animal, man, woman and child with the exception of the occupants of a single boat.

Who's family must have lots of incest.

Terrlock

bumper234 wrote: »

So you are hoping the fairy tale is true to the book. I felt the same about Harry Potter and Lord of the rings

I didn't read the Harry Potter or Lord of the rings books, but I do hear they are better then the films

Delirium

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Jernal wrote: »

Who's family must have lots of incest.

seems to be a recurring theme in the book! :eek::P

Terrlock

Jernal wrote: »

Who's family must have lots of incest.

What's your point about incest?

Have you a moral objection to it?

Terrlock

Obliq wrote: »

Y'know, I was starting to think JC was the only creationist on here, but perhaps he's the only one with the courage of his convictions (even if I do think those convictions are wrong). Where were you when JC was giving it loads, eh?

I was spending time with family and friends.

I don't really spend much time looking at boards.ie

So it's not Just about berating JC then.

It's about Berating anyone with a creationist world view.

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Jernal wrote: »

Who's family must have lots of incest.

Wasn't that a song by yer woman Tina Turner?

Simply incest
Better than all the rest

:eek:

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

What's your point about incest?

Have you a moral objection to it?

You think it would be ok to have sex with your daughter? Or for your daughter to have sex with her brother?

Turtwig

Terrlock wrote: »

What's your point about incest?

Have you a moral objection to it?

Noah's family and descendants had to perform copious amount of incest to build up the human population.

No actual moral objection to incest as long as there's mutual consent and no grooming and the like involved. It would preferable too that it not be carried out in successive generations.

Delirium

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

I was spending time with family and friends.

I don't really spend much time looking at boards.ie

So it's not Just about berating JC then.

It's about Berating anyone with a creationist world view.

Disagreeing isn't berating.

JC has attempted to explain the evidence (as JC sees it) for the flood and why it wasn't evil when God killed almost every human, animal and plant on Earth.

Terrlock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, so it's just some animals now. The last time you claimed this, it was all animals. Fair enough.

Good condition is irrelevant, the animals were on board the ark for over six months. The requirement for a mating pair of lions is 15kg per animal per day. That's 2850kg of fresh meat just for the lions for the voyage which somehow has to be preserved from spoiling.

Young animals is a riskier albeit possible strategy although one that isn't indicated in the text. The chances of preserving the species with an immature pair is much smaller.

Grains huh? What about the carnivores? How did Noah convince all the lions and tigers to eat grain for six months?

If the Lord can feed a whole nation for 40 years in the Desert then I think feeding animals for six months would be a trivial task for him to accomplish.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, this is getting ridiculous. Other posters have already explained your mistake but for the record, a breed is defined as a distinct set of characteristics shared by all members of one group and by no members of a sister group. A species on the other hand emerges when two populations diverge to the point that they can no longer reproduce with viable offspring.

What you have done here is compared one species to an entire "created kind". Nice strawman.

Now, instead of dodging the question, you may want to explain how the cat baramin diversified to all the species listed previously. Or in case you like dogs, maybe you'd like to explain how one crown species from the dog baramin diversified into this:

Canidae (Dog) Baramin
Canis
Gray Wolf Canis lupus
Domestic Dog Canis l. familiaris
Dingo Canis l. dingo
Coyote Canis latrans
Ethiopian Wolf Canis simensis
Golden Jackal Canis aureus
Side-striped Jackal Canis adustus
Black-backed Jackal Canis mesomelas
Dhole Canis alpinus
Lycaon
African Wild Dog Lycaon pictus
Atelocynus
Short-eared Dog Atelocynus microtis
Cerdocyon
Crab-eating Fox Cerdocyon thous
Dusicyon
Falklands Wolf Dusicyon australis († extinct)
Lycalopex (Pseudalopex)
Culpeo Lycalopex culpaeus
Darwin's Fox Lycalopex fulvipes
Argentine Grey Fox Lycalopex griseus
Pampas Fox Lycalopex gymnocercus
Sechura Fox Lycalopex sechurae
Hoary Fox Lycalopex vetulus
Chrysocyon
Maned Wolf Chrysocyon brachyurus
Speothos
Bush Dog Speothos venaticus
Vulpes
Arctic Fox Vulpes lagopus
Red Fox Vulpes vulpes
Swift Fox Vulpes velox
Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis
Corsac Fox Vulpes corsac
Cape Fox Vulpes chama
Pale Fox Vulpes pallida
Bengal Fox Vulpes bengalensis
Tibetan Sand Fox Vulpes ferrilata
Blanford's Fox Vulpes cana
Rüppell's Fox Vulpes rueppelli
Fennec Fox Vulpes zerda
Urocyon
Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Island Fox Urocyon littoralis
Cozumel Fox Urocyon sp.
Otocyon
Bat-eared Fox Otocyon megalotis
Nyctereutes
Raccoon Dog Nyctereutes procyonoides

I'm actually going to go along with oldrnwisr on this one. I can't actually explain how a single pair of cat's can diversify to all those different species and only in 4000's years.

However given that, can anyone explain to me how -

If we all evolved from some single-celled organism that spontaneously developed from some 'primordial soup', where did we get the genetic material for all forms of life on earth today? Even giving millions of years to do so.


Further more could you explain where the initial information in the original strands of DNA came from?

Terrlock

bumper234 wrote: »

You think it would be ok to have sex with your daughter? Or for your daughter to have sex with her brother?

No I find it revolting at that thought of it.

However if you don't believe in God why do you have a problem with it?

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

If the Lord can feed a whole nation for 40 years in the Desert then I think feeding animals for six months would be a trivial task for him to accomplish.

Allegedly

Terrlock wrote: »

I'm actually going to go along with oldrnwisr on this one. I can't actually explain how a single pair of cat's can diversify to all those different species and only in 4000's years.

However given that, can anyone explain to me how -

If we all evolved from some single-celled organism that spontaneously developed from some 'primordial soup', where did we get the genetic material for all forms of life on earth today? Even giving millions of years to do so.


Further more could you explain where the initial information in the original strands of DNA came from?

Mars by the looks of things

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/165184-life-on-earth-originally-came-from-mars-new-study-suggests

EdgarFriendly

Terrlock wrote: »

No I find it revolting at that thought of it.

However if you don't believe in God why do you have a problem with it?

Are you suggesting that someone needs to believe in God in order to have a moral compass?

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

No I find it revolting at that thought of it.

However if you don't believe in God why do you have a problem with it?

You obviously don't have kids. It's not wrong because your "God" says so it's just wrong.:rolleyes:

Terrlock

koth wrote: »

Disagreeing isn't berating.

JC has attempted to explain the evidence (as JC sees it) for the flood and why it wasn't evil when God killed almost every human, animal and plant on Earth.

Well what is evil?

If there is no God, then there is no evil or good for that matter.

And if there is a God and he created everything, then evil would simply be going against the will of that God.

If God sees that his creation is going against his will then who are we to argue against that. I don't have the ability to over rule God's judgements.

Sonics2k

Terrlock wrote: »

If the Lord can feed a whole nation for 40 years in the Desert then I think feeding animals for six months would be a trivial task for him to accomplish.

Sorry but "God did it" is not a real answer. It's literally no different from saying "Buddha did it" or "Zeus did it" except you happen to believe in one of these gods.

What you're basically saying is that food just magically appeared on the boat in time for dinner. But for some reason God wasn't able to just magically have all the animals show up after the flood.

Terrlock wrote: »

I'm actually going to go along with oldrnwisr on this one. I can't actually explain how a single pair of cat's can diversify to all those different species and only in 4000's years.

However given that, can anyone explain to me how -

If we all evolved from some single-celled organism that spontaneously developed from some 'primordial soup', where did we get the genetic material for all forms of life on earth today? Even giving millions of years to do so.


Further more could you explain where the initial information in the original strands of DNA came from?

There was nothing spontaneous about it. But I'll be honest and admit that oldrnwsr and others would have more knowledge on the specifics than myself.

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

EdgarFriendly wrote: »

Are you suggesting that someone needs to believe in God in order to have a moral compass?

Oh that's right....if you don't believe in "God" then you are evil and therefore willing to get up to all sorts of Shennanigans

iDave

Terrlock wrote: »

If the Lord can feed a whole nation for 40 years in the Desert then I think feeding animals for six months would be a trivial task for him to accomplish.

God did it.

And that's what it all boils down to. The creationists can babble on with pseudo-science but when it comes to it their only argument at the end of the day is god did it.

Terrlock

bumper234 wrote: »

You obviously don't have kids. It's not wrong because your "God" says so it's just wrong.:rolleyes:

By why is that?

If we are just the result of genetic mutations and random disasters then where did this whole sense of morality come from?

Why does anyone have the right to decide what is right or wrong?

Turtwig

Terrlock wrote: »

Well what is evil?

If there is no God, then there is no evil or good for that matter.

And if there is a God and he created everything, then evil would simply be going against the will of that God.

Despicable acts that inflict harm e.g rape, upon individuals, might be one example of evil.

How does one follow from the other? Is God not confined by logic? He cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift. Why not have morals confining God too?

So, if God told you to shoot a six year old child in the head that by your logic would be doing good. A disturbing belief.

gaynorvader

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

J C wrote: »

Satan is the proximate cause of all death ... and you can't top that!!!

Terrlock wrote: »

By why is that?

If we are just the result of genetic mutations and random disasters then where did this whole sense of morality come from?

Why does anyone have the right to decide what is right or wrong?

Have a read of this, it probably won't answer all of your questions, but it may help you hone them into more specific ones.

Turtwig

Terrlock wrote: »

By why is that?

If we are just the result of genetic mutations and random disasters then where did this whole sense of morality come from?

Why does anyone have the right to decide what is right or wrong?

Society's seem to grown and thrive from cooperation. The more trade there is between two tribes the less chance they have of declaring war on one another.

Where morality comes from? I don't know, I don't think anyone knows, but you could just as easily ask where do maths or music come from? Is Music somehow not real if God doesn't exist? Or Mathematics? Or for that matter Newton's Laws of Motions?

Through years of cultural evolutions we slowly established what is right and what is wrong. Most biblical teachings are ignored or looked at from a cultural understanding point of view. Cultures developed and curiously for animals and humans to thrive it often helps them to cooperate. Humans are a supreme example of cooperation. An individual working alone in a garage may achieve a lot. A society where that individual shares his thoughts and ideas with many others though achieves a whole lot more than the individual. Networks that work through cooperation also happen to thrive.

Delirium

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Terrlock wrote: »

Well what is evil?

If there is no God, then there is no evil or good for that matter.

Always disconcerting to see a religious person say that.

And if there is a God and he created everything, then evil would simply be going against the will of that God.

Handy that. Nice get out of jail card for killing men, women and children by the millions.

If God sees that his creation is going against his will then who are we to argue against that. I don't have the ability to over rule God's judgements.

Someone who values human life. Millions are drowned by your god and people are supposed to give him a free pass just because he's god? We don't blindly accept genocide if a person of authority carried it out, why should God be any different?

Terrlock

iDave wrote: »

God did it.

And that's what it all boils down to. The creationists can babble on with pseudo-science but when it comes to it their only argument at the end of the day is god did it.

and your right actually in the sense is how can you prove that.

However I can also point out if our solar system is billions of years old then why are there still comets flying around it?

evolutionists are equally guilty of babbling.