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.

24567…48

Comments

  • #32
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Mountains are rising and falling all the time. At the moment I believe most are in decline.

    Have YOU ever seen a mountain rise or fall? How do you know they rose and fell in the past? WERE you there?


  • #33
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Jernal wrote: »
    Have YOU ever seen a mountain rise or fall? How do you know they rose and fell in the past? WERE you there?

    Yes, I saw them and yes.


  • #34
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Sarky wrote: »
    He's awfully, uh, pale, for someone from that area...

    Australia?

    Nah - it's all 'Slip, Slap, Slop - stay out of the bloody sun mate or you get cancer!' down there.


  • #35
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Good cast, according to wiki. Pity they didn't get Michael Fassbender, he's a fine actor. Perhaps he had more sense...?


  • #36
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... if mountains really were around for the billions of years claimed, they would have eroded into the oceans of the world long ago!!!

    gaynorvader
    Mountains are rising and falling all the time. At the moment I believe most are in decline.
    At an average erosion rate of just 0.1 mm per year, a mountain that was 100,000 metres would be eroded in a billion years ... and Everest's puny 8,848 metres would be completely eroded at an average erosion rate of just 9 microns (um) per year.
    To put this into context, the diameter of Human hair varies from 17 um to 100 um.

    ... and the reason that most mountains are in decline is because the Earth is cooling down as time goes by as the after-shocks of the Flood's tectonic processes subside.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    ... and the reason that most mountains are in decline is because the Earth is cooling down as time goes by as the after-shocks of the Flood's tectonic processes subside.

    Epic trolling. Well done - with this latest inanity, you are truly spoiling us JC.


  • #38
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Days 298


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Imagine if JC taught Junior Cert geography and history....


  • #39
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    J C wrote: »
    At an average erosion rate of just 0.1 mm per year, a mountain that was 100,000 metres would be eroded in a billion years ... and Everest's puny 8,848 metres would be completely eroded at an average erosion rate of just 9 microns (um) per year.
    To put this into context, the diameter of Human hair varies from 17 um to 100 um.

    ... and the reason that most mountains are in decline is because the Earth is cooling down as time goes by as the after-shocks of the Flood's tectonic processes subside.

    Oh, JC, still peddling the same old creationist bullsh1t I see.

    It's amazing how you can fit so much stupid into such a short post.

    Anyway, as usual, you're wrong. And here's why.

    Firstly, Mt. Everest isn't a billion years old. The bulk of Everest, i.e. the North Col formation dates only to the middle Cambrian or about 500 million years.

    Secondly, the summit of Everest is covered by approximately 3.5m of snow and ice. This has the effect of severely reducing any effect of erosion by wind or water.

    Finally, the effect of erosion, even by your first estimate (0.1mm/year) is more than offset by the effect of uplift caused by positive movement between the Indian and Eurasian plates. This effect increases the elevation of Everest by 4-6mm per year.

    So, once again you're wrong. And it wouldn't be the first time your claims about the flood have been shown to be wrong. You might remember this and this and this


  • #40
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,030 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


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

    :pac:

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



  • #41
    iDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,750 ✭✭✭iDave


    J C wrote: »
    Hi iDave
    Lets look at the maths ...
    Firstly, the wrong calculation has been done in relation to the capacity of the current water on Earth to flood it. Its the sphere depth of the oceans that is the critical measurement.
    It is thought that the Earth's surface was smoother than it is today, during the Flood ... with lower hills and less deep ocean basins and trenches.
    If the Earth were a smooth sphere there is enough water to cover the entire surface to a depth of over 1.5 miles ... so all of the land on a smoother surfaced Earth could indeed be completely flooded during the Flood.
    There is therefore no shortage of water to flood the entire Earth.

    Quote Encyclopaedia Britannica
    "Actually, all the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres (8,812 feet) deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on Earth’s surface."
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424285/ocean

    The second point of the film posted by you, was in relation to the capacity of the Ark to hold all of the animals.
    Firstly, only land breathing vertebrate animals—corresponding to modern birds, mammals, and reptiles, as well as their extinct counterparts needed to be rescued on the Ark ... so this eliminates any space requirements for fishes and amphibians ... and insects could survive on various 'flotsam and jetsam'.

    All you wanted to know (but were afraid to ask) about how the animals fitted on the Ark are answered here:-
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/how-could-animals-fit-on-ark

    The third point of the film was in relation to the ability of rain (on its own) to flood the Earth ... but the Flood was caused by both rain falling and waters bursting forth from underground, due to enormous world-wide tectonic forces being unleashed ... and its thought that the vast majority of the waters arose from underground sources ... and the heavy rains were only a secondary phenomenon as a result of the condensation of the steam that accompanied the explosive release of the underground waters.

    Don't quote answer in genesis filth to me again as for the rest, pure white noise.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,247 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Days 298 wrote: »
    Imagine if JC taught Junior Cert geography and history....

    Imagine if he learned JC geography and history!


    Hehe, JC geography and history.


  • #43
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


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

    If Noah built his ark in what is now known as the middle east how did animals such as Kangaroo's, Monotremes and Koala bears that are indigenous to Australia get to the middle east?


  • #44
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,144 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    bumper234 wrote: »
    JC

    If Noah built his ark in what is now known as the middle east how did animals such as Kangaroo's, Monotremes and Koala bears that are indigenous to Australia get to the middle east?

    Magic, duh.


  • #45
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    bumper234 wrote: »
    If Noah built his ark in what is now known as the middle east how did animals such as Kangaroo's, Monotremes and Koala bears that are indigenous to Australia get to the middle east?
    This topic was covered at length in 2008, in An Earlier Thread. Here's the redoubtable Scofflaw on the trip from Mount Ararat to Australia, creationist-style:
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm afraid this argument almost exactly demonstrates the difference between the scientific and the pseudo-scientific approaches.

    On the one hand, we know scientifically that lots of animals can only live on a restricted diet - more often the herbivores than the carnivores, in fact - koala bears being a very good example, since they eat only eucalyptus leaves. Fructivores, of course, would have been equally badly off, since soft fruit would neither survive the flood, nor be available again for perhaps years afterwards. Insectivores would also find it impossible to survive, since insects were not taken onto the ark. While some insects may have survived clinging to the famous 'mats of vegetation', you're not talking about a whole ant colony (a) surviving, and (b) digging themselves a new nest in time to become dinner for a hungry pangolin - and pangolins eat pounds of insects each day.

    On the other hand, in the broad brush-strokes of pseudo-science, we have "carnivores eat meat, carrion is meat, therefore carnivores were OK", or "insectivores eat insects, there were insects, therefore insectivores were OK" - and the debate is over.

    The whole point is moot, of course, since these animals were mutating every 3.5 hours anyway, while trying to get from Ararat to their eventual 'destinations' quickly enough to leave no fossil traces of their passing - in the case of the koala bears, down to Australia and across the Wallace Line along with every single other marsupial, presumably carrying eucalyptus seeds. I pity them, for they had only tiny little leggies, and thousands of miles to travel.


  • #46
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    This thread has become wonderful !


  • #47
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    OMG! Spoiler!
    JC,

    I like how you try to believe that a fairytale actually was a real event, so while we're doing that lets continue to ignore all logic and reality and I put to you that there is more evidence of the events from Lord Of The Rings being real then Noah's ark.

    So lets begin,
    - First off Hobbits, they existed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
    - The bird taxi's in Lord Of The Rings really existed, there's evidence of numerous giant birds throughout the earths fossil records
    - Nazgûl-birds's really existed, ok they changed the look in the films but giant flying creatures of this nature again exist in our fossil record - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus As you can see these are more than capable of carrying a Nazgûl King.
    - A written record of the events exists
    - They made films of the events, just like Noah...this adds credibility to it according to you.
    - Mt Doom, it existed but was later destroyed because clearly Mt Doom was a super volcano, this ultimately destroyed middle earth but it was the only type of Volcano able to create the one ring.
    - Dwarfs clearly introduced the skills of metal working and mining to the human race, Dwarfs also mated with humans, This explains dwarfism among the human race.
    - People with powers such as Wizards and Witches existed, the catholic church feared them and ultimately murdered them.
    - The Elves did leave middle earth just as in the written texts, they went to Antarctica. Unfortunately due to layers of ice we have not found evidence of their settlements.
    - The story of lord of the rings teaches us the very basic moral of good against evil, this teaching became the basis for all future faiths and morals for the entire human race,

    Next up, I'm going to outline how the story of Rapunzel was clearly a real event set in Ireland because we have round towers a plenty in Ireland. Again, this is more evidence then we have of god and it also teaches morals!


  • #48
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Cabaal wrote: »

    Next up, I'm going to outline how the story of Rapunzel was clearly a real event set in Ireland because we have round towers a plenty in Ireland. Again, this is more evidence then we have of god and it also teaches morals!

    Makes more sense then the current claim that round towers were built as a defense against those wily seafaring Scandinavians who presumably also carried with them some as yet undiscovered, but very fast and not requiring roads, mode of land transportation so they could attack quite far inland where the majority of round towers are situated.

    I suspect this as yet undiscovered transport was the proto-type for self-assembly IKEA furniture and any day now some one will find ye olde allen key in a bog.


  • #49
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OMG! Spoiler!
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Makes more sense then the current claim that round towers were built as a defense against those wily seafaring Scandinavians who presumably also carried with them some as yet undiscovered, but very fast and not requiring roads, mode of land transportation so they could attack quite far inland where the majority of round towers are situated.

    I was taught that in primary school. Then again I was also taught that everyone from the UK was an evil merciless c*nt. Oh catholic education...


  • #50
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »
    AND it has Emma Watson.

    Is she Joan of Arc?


  • #51
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Sarky wrote: »
    I was taught that in primary school. Then again I was also taught that everyone from the UK was an evil merciless c*nt. Oh catholic education...

    WE ARE!!!!!

    MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA:D


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I'm amazed nobody has pointed out the massive flaw in this film adaption of the fairytale, what the heck is Maximus Decimus Meridius doing driving the boat?

    For the same reason as the massive flaw in Gladiator:
    That was fantasy, in real life M. Decius Meridius would have been murdered if considered a threat and not powerful enought to raise his own army.


  • #53
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Oh, JC, still peddling the same old creationist bullsh1t I see.

    It's amazing how you can fit so much stupid into such a short post.
    Hi Oldrnwisr ...
    ... so far this post is long on invective ... but short on evidence
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    , as usual, you're wrong. And here's why.

    Firstly, Mt. Everest isn't a billion years old. The bulk of Everest, i.e. the North Col formation dates only to the middle Cambrian or about 500 million years.
    It would only take 18 um or the diameter of the finest Human hair of erosion per year to completely wash Everest into the sea over 500 milllion years.
    ... and yet we see great chunks of the limestone that is on top of Mount Everest being eroded before our very eyes today ... the place is literally 'falling down about its ears'!!!
    http://www.drrgateway.net/sites/default/files/raoi-attachments/Landslide%20Mapping%20of%20the%20Everest%20Region%20Using%20High%20Resolution%20Satellite%20Images%20and%203D%20Visuals.pdf

    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Secondly, the summit of Everest is covered by approximately 3.5m of snow and ice. This has the effect of severely reducing any effect of erosion by wind or water.
    Frost and ice are one of the greatest erosion accelerants.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Finally, the effect of erosion, even by your first estimate (0.1mm/year) is more than offset by the effect of uplift caused by positive movement between the Indian and Eurasian plates. This effect increases the elevation of Everest by 4-6mm per year.
    The erosion rate over 500 million years would only have to be 18 um or 0.018 mm per year to completely reduce Everest to dust ... and yet we observe great chunks of rock being washed down the sides of the Everest foothills.
    The Everest uplift is real allright ... and it was very rapid and catastrophic ... so rapid that the limestone on its top is still there and hasn't been eroded ... as would have occurred over a few million years ... if this timeline had ever happened.


  • #54
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    JC

    If Noah built his ark in what is now known as the middle east how did animals such as Kangaroo's, Monotremes and Koala bears that are indigenous to Australia get to the middle east?
    Marsupials aren't confined to Australia ... and the Australian ones would have migrated over period of hundreds of years to Australia, overland and over the land-bridges that were present following the Flood ...
    .... and NS has obviously favoured their proliferation in Australia after they were isolated there.


  • #55
    Cienciano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,134 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    I don't know why people bother. In all the arguments against creationists I've read online, it's the same thing over and over again, no matter what the religion.
    Ignore facts, make up their own, repeat. Repeat, repeat, repeat to infinity.


  • #56
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Makes more sense then the current claim that round towers were built as a defense against those wily seafaring Scandinavians who presumably also carried with them some as yet undiscovered, but very fast and not requiring roads, mode of land transportation so they could attack quite far inland where the majority of round towers are situated.

    As any fule kno, they rode hoverboards, as donated to them by Marty McFly. The documentary of this event, Back to the Future IV, has been cruelly supressed by the US government as they don't want the world to find out how truly cool the vikings were.


  • #57
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,263 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    J C wrote: »
    Hi Oldrnwisr ...
    ... so far this post is long on invective ... but short on evidence

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqHUf5wmLg

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #58
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Cienciano wrote: »
    I don't know why people bother. In all the arguments against creationists I've read online, it's the same thing over and over again, no matter what the religion.
    Ignore facts, make up their own, repeat. Repeat, repeat, repeat to infinity.
    I agree that the arguments against Creation are quite repetitive and quite poor allright.;)


  • #59
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Even if God flooded the Earth? How does He destroy THUNDERBIRD 4?
    Hmmmm J C vs oldrnwisr.....who'll win that one?


  • #60
    Doctor Strange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭Doctor Strange


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    lazygal wrote: »
    Hmmmm J C vs oldrnwisr.....who'll win that one?

    I believe oldrnwisr would have more of a challenge playing chess against a pigeon.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,247 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    lazygal wrote: »
    Hmmmm J C vs oldrnwisr.....who'll win that one?

    What odds are ya givin'?


Advertisement