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.

1…34689…48

Comments

  • #152
    EdgarFriendly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭EdgarFriendly


    J C wrote: »
    All quite true ... and indicative that Lions and Tigers are both part of the one Baramin or Created Kind ... that has since speciated into Lion and Tigers ... and other modern Cat Species.

    No, it isn't. It's indication that Lions and Tigers share a common ancestor. Not that they are a created kind. You were asked to outline your understanding of what a species is, and you cited the Liger. This is clear cut evidence that you don't know what the term species means with respect to biology.

    A liger is a not a new species.

    Also, while I have you here - Since you're an advocate for Noah's Ark. Tell me, why are there no Kangaroos in Europe? Why are there no Bonobos in Australia? Why is the biodiversity of each geographic region distinct?

    If Noah had all the animals on the ark, then we would see an even distribution of all of them around the globe. Instead, we see unique species in isolated geographic regions, only explainable through millions and millions of years of isolated evolution.


  • #153
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Amazed JC is ok with all the incest, like adam and eve noahs family would have had to do a whole lot of inbreeding/incest.
    They did engage in 'inbreeding', of necessity ... but this was quite safe genetically as the Human Genome was still quite close to perfect during those times. Marriage between closely related persons was only banned some years after the Flood when mutagenesis had progreesed to the point where it had become likely that closely related persons could produce homzygous recessive deleterious alleles in their children.
    Even today, first cousins may marry (although it isn't a good idea) ... although Darwin didn't appear to think so ... as he married his First Cousin Emma Wedgewood.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Darwin
    Cabaal wrote: »
    Also even that inbreeding doesnt account for all the languages and races that exist
    The languages were created by God at Babel ... so that the worldwide dispersal that God ordered after the Flood (and which was ignored and thwarted by Nimrod) could take place.
    There is only one race of people ... the Human Race ... and within it there is considerable variety of physique and physical features.


  • #154
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    EdgarFriendly wrote: »
    No, it isn't. It's indication that Lions and Tigers share a common ancestor. Not that they are a created kind. You were asked to outline your understanding of what a species is, and you cited the Liger. This is clear cut evidence that you don't know what the term species means with respect to biology.

    A liger is a not a new species.
    A Liger is a new species (although not a very viable one) as it has serious breeding difficulties. It would appear that the speciating capacity of all creatures is now practically exhausted ... but the variety of current viable species that can interbreed with each other (to some degree) indicates that very significant levels of speciation occurred within Baramin in the past ... and this is a key reason why Noah didn't have to bring breeding pairs of every species alive today onto the Ark ... he only need one sample pair from each Baramin.
    EdgarFriendly wrote: »
    Also, while I have you here - Since you're an advocate for Noah's Ark. Tell me, why are there no Kangaroos in Europe? Why are there no Bonobos in Australia? Why is the biodiversity of each geographic region distinct?
    Natural Selection and Human Hunting accounts for most of this. For example, we have no feral Wolves in Ireland as they were hunted to extinction ... and we have no Muskox in the hot tropics ... because they would 'pass out' with the heat ... but we do have their equivalent in the Yack in the cold tropics because NS favours their long hairy coats at high altitudes in the Himalayas.
    EdgarFriendly wrote: »
    If Noah had all the animals on the ark, then we would see an even distribution of all of them around the globe. Instead, we see unique species in isolated geographic regions, only explainable through millions and millions of years of isolated evolution.
    We would expect different species to occupy different ecological and geographical niches around the globe ... with genetic adaptation to local conditions via natural selection from the genetic diversity present in the foundation stock that left the Ark and went forth across the earth, being 'fruitful and multipying' ... as they went!!
    ... and that is what we observe to have occurred.


  • #155
    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?
    Edgarfriendly, welcome. I am liking you :D In the interests of self preservation though, please understand that your brain may melt in argument with JC, long before he runs out of madey-upey stuff to clobber us all with. To him, this constitutes a win.

    And JC, speaking as a ginger I wish to point out that well known stereotype about us that we are rather .....um....outspoken. If we need you to stand up for us, we'll let you know. Thanks.


  • #156
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    You can't debate with someone who believes a fishing boat sized craft saved all the species of animal that exist on our planet
    Much more like oil-tanker sized ship ... and even if, for the sake of argument, you cannot debate with Creation Scientists, like me ... you could still present contrary plausible arguments based on the physical evidence that I present ... but I have yet to see persuasive contrary arguments, that I cannot 'run a horse and four' through.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Sofaspud
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭Sofaspud


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Did JC respond to the question of why his god bothered to drown everyone?

    Being a god, he could have just made everyone disappear, or less sadistically, simply made everyone nice again.

    And don't use the "free will" excuse, because giving them an epiphany that they should be nicer would have been a lot kinder than murdering them all.

    Not to mention that when he created mankind he knew all that was and all that would ever be, so he knew that one day man would get out of hand and he'd kill everyone?

    So he created a species, with the intent of one day horrendously killing all but select few, and killing off most other life on the planet as an afterthought?

    He doesn't sound like a very nice god. I'll stick with the Flying Spaghetti Monster for now, his carbohydrates bless me with energy for my worship.


  • #158
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,260 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    J C wrote: »
    A Liger is a new species

    "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." - Through The Looking-Glass

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #159
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    I'm still waiting to find out which creation scientists are respected by the scientific community.


  • #160
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    J C wrote: »
    you cannot debate with Creation Scientists, like me..,

    Ain't that the bloody truth.


  • #161
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    J C wrote: »
    Much more like oil-tanker sized ship ... and even if, for the sake of argument, you cannot debate with Creation Scientists, like me ... you could still present contrary plausible arguments based on the physical evidence that I present ... but I have yet to see persuasive contrary arguments, that I cannot 'run a horse and four' through.

    450 feet x 75 is not a tanker.
    Unless you live in lilliput.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    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?
    Why did your "God" murder newborn babies and fetus in the mothers womb. Did they also in you words have evil in their hearts and thoughts:eek:


  • #163
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    A couple of things. First, no. This "debate" has been going for years. You lost it years ago.
    I think not ... but you are entitled to your opinion.

    I don't know why this has 'broken out' again ... but it may be because I didn't fully answer oldrwiser's posts in other threads in the past ... they came late into these threads ... and I had other issues to deal with at the time ... but now I'm ready to provide his very insightful posts with answers deserved by the obvious work that he has put into them.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    And second:

    280709.jpg

    MrP
    I could make the same unfounded statement about irreligious people ... and where would that get us all? ...
    ... precisely no further on ... just like all other unfounded comments about any group of people with whom we disagree.


  • #164
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    In good standing with whom?

    A creation scientist has to be, by definition, barking mad and totally inconsistent.
    ... no more so than an Evolutionist Scientist has to be ... either.;)


  • #165
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sofaspud wrote: »
    Did JC respond to the question of why his god bothered to drown everyone?

    Being a god, he could have just made everyone disappear, or less sadistically, simply made everyone nice again.

    And don't use the "free will" excuse, because giving them an epiphany that they should be nicer would have been a lot kinder than murdering them all.
    This post is answered in part here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87533001&postcount=109
    Sofaspud wrote: »
    Not to mention that when he created mankind he knew all that was and all that would ever be, so he knew that one day man would get out of hand and he'd kill everyone?

    So he created a species, with the intent of one day horrendously killing all but select few, and killing off most other life on the planet as an afterthought?
    Ah ... but He also knew that there would be nice people like me and you as well ... so, on balance, He decided to go ahead with His Creation ... and I'm certainly glad that He did.
    Sofaspud wrote: »
    He doesn't sound like a very nice god. I'll stick with the Flying Spaghetti Monster for now, his carbohydrates bless me with energy for my worship.
    He is an amazing all loving all just God ... perfect in every way actually.

    ... and if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just another name for eating Spaghetti ... then we're all 'pastafarians' !!!:)
    ... and I'm just about to engage in some Flying Spaghetti Monster eating ... and I mean it literally ... and not metaphorically!!!:)


  • #166
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,030 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    How did Noah and co not starve to death post flood. All crops were destroyed and it would basically be impossible to get crops growing within a few years due to poisoned soil.

    They couldn't eat the animals as they were for repopulating the globe. And the animals couldn't eat the animals either.

    actually how did they avoid dehydration or scurvy while on the ark?

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



  • #167
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,030 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    Ah ... but He also knew that there would be nice people like me and you as well ... so, on balance, He decided to go ahead with His Creation ... and I'm certainly glad that He did.
    But there were probably millions of nice people back then. People that God just murdered.
    He is an amazing all loving all just God ... perfect in every way actually.
    as long as you overlook the 'prone to bouts of genocide' trait.

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



  • #168
    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?
    J C wrote: »
    This post is answered in part here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87533001&postcount=109

    Ah ... but He also knew that there would be nice people like me and you as well ... so, on balance, He decided to go ahead with His Creation ... and I'm certainly glad that He did.

    He is an amazing all loving all just God ... perfect in every way actually

    ... and if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just another name for eating Spaghetti ... then we're all 'pastafarians' !!!:)
    ... and I'm just about to engage in some Flying Spaghetti Monster eating!!!:)

    So why did he just kill thousands in asia? Why did he let the Nazis kill 6 million of his children? Why did he let a further 100 million die in ww2? Why does he let 2 year old children get cancer? Why did he let priests (his servants on earth) rape young boys and girls? Why does he let millions die for the want of a cup of water if in fact he could just make it rain or open up one of these underground rivers?

    All loving god my arse :rolleyes:


  • #169
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    A Better question would be, would the Dr. have rescued Noah?
    'All people were bad' therefore the christian god apparently killed every living animal, except for 700 or so. Good work.


  • #170
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Why did your "God" murder newborn babies and fetus in the mothers womb. Did they also in you words have evil in their hearts and thoughts:eek:
    ... it seems that they did ... and physical death seems to have been the only solution to the problem.
    Because they didn't have the chance to decide to be Saved before death they would have, in justice, been given the the choice of Salvation since then.

    The Ark project was underway for some time ... and they were given the option of physical salvation by Noah ... but they threw his offer in his face and mocked him.


  • #171
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    ^^^ he-he,
    There's not enough rolleyes on the internet to deal with that rubbish.!


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    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?
    J C wrote: »
    ... it seems that they did ... and physical death seems to have been the only solution to the problem.
    Because they didn't have the chance to decide to be Saved before death they would have, in justice, been given the the choice of Salvation since then.

    The Ark project was underway for some time ... and they were given the option of physical salvation by Noah ... but they threw his offer in his face and mocked him.

    So God helped women get pregnant through the miracle of life, God then decided he didn't want these babies to be born so he murdered them.

    So God committed the first abortions.


  • #173
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So God helped women get pregnant through the miracle of life, God then decided he didn't want these babies to be born so he murdered them.

    So God committed the first abortions.

    Probably wasn't the first abortionist
    .....but he's definitely the most prolific in the history of this little planet of ours


  • #174
    Rayne Wooney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,136 ✭✭✭✭Rayne Wooney


    So an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnificent god murdered millions of people including young babies, who couldn't have been corrupted by evil, even though he knew it would happen and could have easily stopped it with a click of his fingers if he wanted?


  • #175
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    How did Noah and co not starve to death post flood. All crops were destroyed and it would basically be impossible to get crops growing within a few years due to poisoned soil.
    Just like today, flooding tends to increase the fertility of soil ... and thus the first harvest after the Flood was probably a bountiful one!!
    koth wrote: »
    They couldn't eat the animals as they were for repopulating the globe. And the animals couldn't eat the animals either.
    The Humans could eat stored grains from before the Flood until the first harvest ... and the vegetarian animals had growing vegetation form the 'get go' after leaving the Ark ... one of the tests that the Flood had subsided was that a dove returned with a freshly plucked olive leaf!! (Gen 8:11).

    The carnivores would have plenty of uneaten carrion washed up on their 'doorsteps' ... and probably frozen at the higher altitudes where the Ark came to rest on Mt Arrarat.
    koth wrote: »
    actually how did they avoid dehydration or scurvy while on the ark?
    a bit of rainwater harvesting ... with a few Lemons and Limes added as a 'twist' !!!:D


  • #176
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,030 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    Just like today, flooding tends to increase the fertility of soil ... and thus the first harvest after the Flood was probably a bountiful one!!
    Not if it's sea-water. The land would be poisoned after the waters receeded.
    The Humans could eat stored grains from before the Flood until the first harvest ... and the vegetarian animals had growing vegetation form the 'get go' after leaving the Ark ... one of the tests that the Flood had subsided was that a dove returned with a freshly plucked olive leaf!! (Gen 8:11).
    How did an olive tree grow if all trees died off from salt poisoning? And even if trees managed to reproduce, how did tree grow so quickly in a matter of months?
    a bit of rainwater harvesting ... with a few Lemons and Limes added as a 'twist' !!!:D
    where did all the fruit come from? and how was it stored to stop it rotting after a few weeks?

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



  • #177
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So God helped women get pregnant through the miracle of life, God then decided he didn't want these babies to be born so he murdered them.

    So God committed the first abortions.
    God, as Creator ... giveth ... and He can taketh away ... but He doesn't usually involve Himself in such matters ... unless the situation is in extremis and no other solution is possible ... like the Flood ... and in the future, Armageddon.


  • #178
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Rayne Wooney wrote: »
    So an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnificent god murdered millions of people including young babies, who couldn't have been corrupted by evil, even though he knew it would happen and could have easily stopped it with a click of his fingers if he wanted?
    The point is that He didn't want to ... God hates evil ... and He will not countenance a situation where total evil reigns constantly.


  • #179
    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?
    J C wrote: »
    God, as Creator ... giveth ... and He can taketh away ... but He doesn't usually involve Himself in such matters ... unless the situation is in extremis and no other solution is possible ... like the Flood ... and in the future, Armageddon.

    The brainwashing is strong in this one :rolleyes:


  • #180
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,030 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    The point is that He didn't want to ... God hates evil ... and He will not countenance a situation where total evil reigns constantly.

    As long as as you ignore all the evil regimes in recorded history where God didn't wipe out almost all life on the planet.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #181
    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?
    J C wrote: »
    The point is that He didn't want to ... God hates evil ... and He will not countenance a situation where total evil reigns constantly.

    Even in unborn babies and poor dumb animals.


Advertisement