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
Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?EdgarFriendly wrote: »Only the promise of eternal life could encourage someone to believe that a figure that committed acts of genocide was fair, just and forgiving.
The God of the bible is spiteful, narcissistic and more violent than Adolf Hitler. It's hard to picture when reading it objectively how Satan turned out to be the bad guy, when it's God doing all the murder and pillaging.
I am going to kill you so you can live forever
Don't the Muslim fanatics say the same thing to the poor schlubs that they strap bombs too? A promise of eternal life and 72 virgins awaits them Allah said so and it's in the Koran so it must be true right? Maybe JC will be able to explain which god and holy book is real.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I'm not arguing that the ante-diluvian Earth's surface was perfectly smooth ... and Genesis doesn't say this either. Gen 6:20 says that the waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits or about 10 metres which would indicate an elevation range approximating to the sphere depth of 2,686 metres or about 8.800 feet.
... and most of the waters appeared from under the surface of the earth via tectonic catastrophic collapse ... and it hasn't disappeared, as it is now primarily present in the oceans and ice caps of the Earth.
OK, there are a couple of problems here.
Firstly, and most importantly, you shouldn't quote mine chunks of text from the Encyclopedia Britannica without trying to understand what it actually says.
Ocean (Encyclopedia Britannica)
This article from which you lift your spurious "sphere depth" claim underscores just how truly abominable your understanding of science is. Firstly, what the article actually says is the amount of water which would cover all the land. It is not a commentary on the capacity of the amount of water actually on earth to flood the earth.
Secondly, whatever way you slice it, the maths of your flood claim don't add up. And here's why.
The current volume of water in the oceans is 1,386,000,000 cubic km.
The current surface area of the landmass is 148,847,000 square km.
The current mean elevation of the landmass is 840m.
Therefore, the current volume of land above sea level is 124,729,080 cubic km.
Given current topography, the amount of water necessary to cover the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits (approx 7m) is 4,384,314,066 cubic km.
The total amount of water locked in ice at both poles is enough to raise the oceans by just 68m or 34,598,042 cubic km.
Now that's quite a gap to bridge and here is where it gets interesting. There are two options which represent the limits of the possible topographical configurations of the flood.
On one hand, we have the Earth topologically as it is today. This creates three problems. Firstly, there is the problem of where the extra 4.35 billion cubic km went after the flood. Secondly, there is the problem of how the excess underground water came to flood the earth. The underground water theory proposed by Walt Brown suggests that the water was trapped about 10 miles under the earth. This means that the escaping steam would have had a temperature of approximately 3000°C. The specific heat capacity of steam at that temperature is 3090 J/kg/K. The specific heat capacity of water is 4187 J/kg/K and we will assume a mean temperature of 10°C. Therefore if we use the formula mcΔT then we can see that the escaping steam would have been enough the raise the temperature of all the water on earth to over 2000°C! Not even the Ark would have survived that. Finally, even if somehow, all this escaping water managed not to cook everyone instantly, there is the problem of the rain which you suggest fell due to the condensation of the escaped steam. There is a physical limit to how much water vapour the atmosphere can accomodate which is about 4%. To accomodate, the amount of water vapour needed, the atmosphere would have been dense to the point of crushing and suffocating everyone on the planet.
Now, on the other hand, you can begin with the assumption that the current volume of water on earth represents the post-deluge volume and that it is the landmass which has increased in volume in the intervening 4000 years.
From our first example, we know the current ocean volume, as well as that of the ice caps. Therefore, for the current amount of water to have flooded the earth, there would have to be a reduction in the average elevation of the land to 67m. This means that the volume of landmass pre-Flood would have to have increased by 115 million cubic km in 4000 years to account for the volume of landmass we have today. There is no physical process that is even remotely capable of achieving this. Just to put this in context, even if we assume that every living thing on earth which died in the flood were fossilised, the amount of biological material needed to achieve this change in topography is 162,092,693,248,000,000,000kg. To further put this number in context, the estimated current mass of the biosphere (all life on earth) is approximately 4,000,000,0000,000 tons. Therefore there would have to have been 40,000 times more life on earth pre-Flood than there is now. Yeah, right.
Whatever way you look at it, the maths of the Genesis account just doesn't add up.Genesis doesn't provide an exhaustive account of all creatures on Earth, so it's no surprise that Kangaroos aren't included.
... and there were 'land bridges' between the Asian mainland and Australia in recent times ... and some of the animals that dispersed from the ark over a number of generations crossed these bridges to colonise Australia ... where the local conditions favoured the NS of marsupials.
Firstly, a minor point. How do you know that the lists in Genesis are not exhaustive lists. There is every possibility that the list in Genesis was intended to be exhaustive. You shouldn't read things into the text that isn't there.
Now, as for your main point, you're wrong.
Humans first migrated from Asia to Australia about 45,000 years ago. At this point, as we can see from the map above, there was already no land bridge between the continents.
Pleistocene Sea Level Maps
Therefore, there is no possibility of such a migration 4000 years ago.'Polar' animals are mostly 'cold climate' selected versions of warm climate Kinds ... e.g. the 'Polar' Bear is just a selected version of warm climate Black and Brown Bears ... and they are all descended from the original Bear Kind pair that were on the Ark.
Don't sidestep the question JC.
I'm not talking about polar bears or their genetic ancestry. I'm talking about this claim in particular:
"the temperature variations were minimal over the Earth at the time before the Flood due to atmospheric 'greenhouse' conditions at the time that increased the temperature at the poles and reduced it at the equator"
There is no evidence for this claim, either in your source text or anywhere else in science. Care to substantiate it?Dormancy is certainly a possibility for some of the creatures. Feed storage requirement would have been minimised by animals coming on board in good condition, smaller young animals and the use of high energy density feed like grains.
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?Dogs have definitively diversified over a similar range of types (in the very recent past, in many cases) ... from this :-
to this:-
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
These are your lists, JC. You posted them here, based on this website. You should at least be able to back them up.The flood level over the highest land areas was only 15 cubits (or about 10 metres) ... and many plants would survive as seeds/cuttings buried in mud under the water or on floating mats and flotsom only to germinate when conditions were right after the flood.
The seeds of thousands of important plants could also easily have been carried aboard the Ark
What about the lower areas. Particularly what about the areas which dominate the biblical landscape, the middle east. These are all mostly low-lying sea-level areas. Pretty much all of the middle east would have had no plant life left if the flood had really happened on the scale of the Genesis account.
Oh, and there's no mention of any plants or seeds being carried onto the ark. Like I said, stop reading things into the text that aren't there. You shouldn't make such baseless and unsupportable claims.If the Lions were two young cubs ... they would be relatively easy to control in a basic enclosure.
And what were they fed on until they reached maturity?
What abiotic sources? Is this a different chalk to the one that everyone else is familiar with. You know, this one:- Where did all the organic material (e.g. chalk, coal) in the fossil record come from?
Most of the calcite in limestone and chalks came from abiotic mineral sources possibly supersaturated in the released sub-terranean waters that triggered the Flood.
"It forms under reasonably deep marine conditions from the gradual accumulation of minute calcite plates (coccoliths) shed from micro-organisms called coccolithophores."
"Ninety million years ago the chalk downland of Northern Europe was ooze accumulating at the bottom of a great sea. Protozoans such as foraminifera lived on the marine debris that showered down from the upper layers of the ocean. Their shells were made of calcite extracted from the rich sea-water. As they died a deep layer gradually built up and eventually, through the weight of overlying sediments, became consolidated into rock. Later earth movements related to the formation of the Alps raised these former sea-floor deposits above sea level."
Chalk
Stop avoiding the question. If the geologic record contains the remains of those wiped out in the flood, then we should expect to find modern human remains as well as a massive selection of tools, houses etc. buried in the geologic record, which we don't find.- Why are there no modern plants, or, for that matter, human artifacts or other fossils found deep in the geologic column?
They are found in the Geologic Column as fossilis ... but their presence is explained away as 'anomalies' ... or the age attributed to their location is 'modern'
"Flood burial"? Are you cracked? Did you even read your own story? The Flood rains lasted for forty days and nights followed by 150 days of relatively calm waters. During this time all the creatures killed during the flood should have been sorted by size in the flood waters and therefore be similarly sorted in the geological record. However, when we look at the geological record we see the opposite of what we would expect if the flood were true.- Why do smaller organisms dominate the lower strata instead of having floated to the upper strata if the flood were true?
The Geologic Column is a record of flood burial ... with smaller, less mobile organisms and 'bottom dwellers' buried first ... and larger more mobile and land-based animals buried last.
Mount St. Helens was an extraordinary event, but even the flood can't account for the varves that we have found. Like this for example:- How could varves have been formed so quickly?
... thousands of varves (or micro-layers) were formed by water processes during the explosion of Mount St Helens in a few hours.
Green River Formation
Verification that Green River Varves are Annual Layers
The Green River formation contains more than 20,000,000 annual layers.
OK, firstly, since there was no need to preserve marine animals on the ark, this implies that marine life survived the Flood. Therefore there should already be a disparity between the number of marine and land mammals in the fossil record. Of course, again, the opposite of what the Genesis account predicts is actually true.- Why do marine fossils vastly outnumber land animals in the fossil record?
... because the cementation materials (that fossilised all of these creatures) were the most available locally where the fountains of the great deep were released ... generally under water on the ocean floors.
and larger land animals would generally float upon the waves as they rotted and therefore largely 'escaped' fossilisation.
Secondly, larger land animals may have been subject to some predation, although not much, however we should still expect to find many more skeletonised remains than we actually do.The definitive English text is the KJV.
The KJV may have the more aesthetically pleasing language of the different translations but accuracy, don't make me laugh.
Firstly, the KJV was translated in 1611. It was translated from a text known as the Textus Receptus, complied by Dutch scholar Erasmus. The TR was based on just six manuscripts from the 12th Century. This means that the KJV was translated without the most complete or most authentic texts available, i.e. the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.
It also contains a number of verses not present in the original text (later additions):
List of Bible verses not included in modern translations
List of mistranslations in the KJVBoth are accounts of the same worldwide Flood Event ... and Genesis is the definitive account.
Genesis is the definitive account.
There are hundreds of Flood stories amongst practically every native culture of the World ... and the Epic of Gilgamesh is just one of these.
Yes, you keep saying that Genesis is the definitive account and yet you haven't offered any textual evidence to support this.
Yes, there are lots of Flood myths around the world and a lot of them precede the date of the Flood in Genesis. The Aboriginal flood myth, for example, is 8000 years older than the supposed date of the one in Genesis.
Secondly, there is a clear borrowing of texts which I have shown earlier. This shows that the story was retold several times by civilisations of the region. The earliest versions of this story are The Epic of Ziusudra, preserved in Eridu Genesis, dated to 1600BC and the epic of Atrahasis, dated to 1630BC. Following that we have the Epic of Gilgamesh, dated to 7th century BC. Finally we have Genesis dated to 5th century BC. So the idea that Genesis is the definitive account despite being the most recent and being copied from the others is, well, laughable. Just like the rest of your posts.0 - Where did all the organic material (e.g. chalk, coal) in the fossil record come from?
-
-
-
FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?I'm sorry but here around you have to respect the autocracy. If there is going to be posts of the year they need to be made by Dades, Rob or Jernal. If not any competing post will just be deleted and all dissenters banned.
Hahahahaha. I love you even more for this, Jernal.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I'd be happier if oldrnwsr proved it was just a mislaid barrell of wine all along.
I wouldn't say misplaced, more like made up.
The first problem with the Marriage at Cana is that it is the only gospel which records the event. None of the earlier synoptic gospels mention this supposed miracle at all.
Secondly, John's gospel is heavy with symbolism and is deliberately structured to show that Jesus is divine. The narrative of John's gospel is centred around seven miracle stories which claim to attest to Jesus' divinity. Additionally, the gospel is littered with the "I Am" sayings e.g. John 6:35, John 8:12, John 10:9.
Finally, John although sharing little in common with the synoptic gospels uses a literary technique common to the synoptic gospels and widespread in syncretic mythology. He retells a story from earlier myth and makes it bigger and more elaborate to show how Jesus is superior. For example in The Feeding of the 5000 is told in all four gospels and is a retelling of a miracle performed by Elisha in 2 Kings with Jesus feeding more people with less food, demonstrating his superiority.
John's gospel is the last of the canonical gospels to be written and was composed sometime between 90 and 100 CE. At this time one of the burgeoning religions competing with early Christianity was the Dionysian religion. In greek mythology, we have the story of the wedding of Dionysus and Ariadne at which Dionysus turns water into wine. In John the story is retold to show the divinity of Jesus who is able to perform the same feat.
So no misplaced barrel but no miracle either.0 -
Speciation can occur very rapidly ... and many cat species can interbreed with varying degrees of success ... for example Tigers can interbreed with Lions to produce 'Ligers' and 'Tigons'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
Although Tope and Edgarfriendly have already torn this point apart, just one more point for the record.
Firstly, as has been explained to you, the Liger is not a new species.
Secondly, and more importantly your claim above (in bold) that many cat species interbreed with varying degrees of success is well, bollocks.
And here's why.
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.
Finally, to underscore the point, there are 42 members of the cat kind which I posted previously. This means that there are 1722 possible pairings, given the potentially different outcomes of converse pairings (i.e. male tiger x female lion vs. male lion x female tiger). We have only recorded evidence of healthy (not necessarily fertile, just healthy) offspring in just 67 of these combinations. Therefore the success rate you speak of is just 3.8%. So not interfertile.
Of course all of this has been explained to you before, and yet here you are back making the same redundant claims.0 -
-
JC has been making the same bizarre claims for almost nine years, since his/her first post in February 2005.
What's remarkable about these posts is their hopeless, dreadful consistency and JC appears to have learned nothing from almost nine years of pointlessly patient exposition from some truly great posters across what must be the entire field of modern biology. Their posts have been a revelation to me, just as much as JC's have not.
In any case, either JC's the most durable troll accounts on boards -- hell, perhaps one of the most durable on the internet -- or else he/she is demonstrably incapable of learning anything.
It would make an interesting, if morbid, calculation to figure out from the boards backend database, how many words JC has posted on this topic, and from that, an estimate of how many hours might have been spent, typing away into the long, lonely marches of the night without so much as a single conversion to show for it all. Religious fundamentalism is a cold, harsh thing at the best of times, but for its encouragement and legitimization of this kind of divide-by-zero behavior, deserves nothing but the greatest condemnation.
As a guilty pleasure I do enjoy a public access talk show from Texas called the Atheist Experience. Often, they'll get fundamentalist callers who are incredibly ill advised or just plain threatening.
When asked, one of the presenters Matt Dillahunty (who's already popped up a few times in this forum as someone who got the worst of A+) always says that he endures that and replies to the unending stream of falsehoods presented to him over and over and over usually in the exact same format with some initial patience and clarity instead of ridicule because you're not really providing an answer for the person asking the question, but for other people who might be watching, or are teetering on the edge of their beliefs.
If JC is not a troll, the irony is that the responses given here, while no effect on him personally, have probably informed or inspired many, many people, just like you and me, and he's ultimately done so much more damage to creationism than those individuals ever would have if he'd never shown up for them to bounce off of.
Of course if JC is some form of SuperPoe then this is mission accomplished
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
OMG! Spoiler!Doctor DooM wrote: »Of course if JC is some form of SuperPoe then this is mission accomplished
If J C is some form of SuperPoe then J C needs to get some help because nearly a decade of 'pretending' to be so clueless isn't good for anyone. Like how Heath Ledger spent a little too long being The Joker, only with HURR DURR instead of drugs.0
![[-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement