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…457910…48

Comments

  • #182
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Not if it's sea-water. The land would be poisoned after the waters receeded.
    Localised freshwater from rain would have made such lands fertile from the 'get go' ... and would have rapidly cleansed the rest.
    koth wrote: »
    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?
    The Bible doesn't say that all plant life was killed ... only the air-breathing land animals. Mature trees may have been preserved in areas where the Flood only lasted for a few days and/or where the water was predominantly fresh due to rainwater providing the local floodwater.
    koth wrote: »
    where did all the fruit come from? and how was it stored to stop it rotting after a few weeks?
    The acidity of citrus fruits could preserve them for a considerable time ... and the rest could be preserved by pickling or in jams.
    I recently came across an unopened jar of jam in the back of a press with the price label in Punts ... and it tasted great!!

    ... and there was no evidence of the spontaneous generation of any organism in it!!


  • #183
    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: »
    Localised freshwater from rain would have made such lands fertile from the 'get go' ... and would have rapidly cleansed the rest.

    The Bible doesn't say that all plant life was killed ... only the air-breathing land animals. Mature trees may have been preserved in areas where the Flood only lasted for a few days and/or where the water was predominantly fresh due to rainwater providing the local floodwater.

    The acidity of citrus fruits could preserve them for a considerable time ... and the rest could be preserved by pickling or in jams.
    I recently came across a jar of jam in the back of a press with the price label in Punts ... and it tasted great!!

    ... and there was no evidence of the spontaneous generation of any organism in it!!

    All land was submerged but trees weren't. And yet all tree animals died?

    And they brought jam with them on the ark?

    You're some chancer, JC :P:pac:

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



  • #184
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    But there were probably millions of nice people back then. People that God just murdered.
    There weren't any (except Noah & Co) apparently.

    Sounds like a frightful place.


  • #185
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    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.
    God's hand was stayed by all of the good people present at those times.


  • #186
    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: »
    There weren't any (except Noah & Co) apparently.

    Sounds like a frightful place.

    Sounds makey-uppey. Children between 1 and 10 years old were evil?

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



  • Advertisement
  • #187
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    All land was submerged but trees weren't. And yet all tree animals died?
    The trees were probably all submerged ... for long enough to kill any animals in them ... but not long enough to kill the trees.
    koth wrote: »
    And they brought jam with them on the ark?
    Noah may have had a 'sweet tooth'!!!:D
    ... and its quite plausible technology with which to preserve fruits ... which was the question you asked.
    koth wrote: »
    You're some chancer, JC :P:pac:
    I'm finding the questions to be the 'chancy' ones ... my answers are evidentially and logically based!!!:p


  • #188
    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 trees were probably all submerged ... for long enough to kill any animals in them ... but not long enough to kill the trees.

    Noah may have had a 'sweet tooth'!!!:D
    ... and its quite plausible technology with which to preserve fruits ... which was the question you asked.

    I'm finding the questions to be the 'chancy' ones ... my answers are evidentially and logically based!!!:p

    In your head maybe.


  • #189
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Sounds makey-uppey. Children between 1 and 10 years old were evil?
    If they were inculcated into their parents evil, perhaps.
    There is also a hint that some kind of genetic issue developed with the statements about the 'sons of God' and the 'Nephilim' and their nepharious activity around and about the impregnation of women.
    It could have been some kind of out of control 'genetic plague' that had been transmitted to everyone on Earth except Noah and part of his family.
    Whatever it was, Genesis is quite coy with the details (perhaps for the very good reason of avoiding a repetition).


  • #190
    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?
    Quite amazing that creationists believe that there were children who were so evil they had to be put to death by drowning. Thats quite sadistic. That God you have sounds like a right cnut.


  • #191
    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: »
    If they were inculcated into their parents evil, perhaps.
    There is also a hint that some kind of genetic issue developed with the statements about the 'sons of God' and the 'Nephilim' and their nepharious activity around and about the impregnation of women.
    It could have been some kind of out of control 'genetic plague' that had been transmitted to everyone on Earth except Noah and part of his family.
    Whatever it was, Genesis is quite coy with the details (perhaps for the very good reason of avoiding a repetition).

    Oh my here comes the angels angle.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    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?
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I have to admit, I almost admire J Cs dedication to his beliefs/trolling.

    Any time I see the word 'baramin' I die a little inside though. I dont know why I keep coming on these threads.

    I find it interesting that in the year 2013 with all our technology and science people still choose to believe this crap. Thats what brings me back here. Its insightful, worrying and entertaining all at the same time.

    Lets not forget the flood hinges on the idea the earth is 6000 years old too :pac:


  • #193
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Days 298 wrote: »
    Quite amazing that creationists believe that there were children who were so evil they had to be put to death by drowning. Thats quite sadistic. That God you have sounds like a right cnut.
    I don't even know if there were any children on Earth at this time ... if the Nephilim and the 'sons of God' created some kind of genetic issue there might not have been any children.

    The Bible makes no reference to children being present or drowning one way or the other. If they were there, they drowned with the rest ... but I'm not saying that they (or anybody else) had to drown because of their evil ... but it would seem that this was what happened.


  • #194
    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?
    Days 298 wrote: »
    Quite amazing that creationists believe that there were children who were so evil they had to be put to death by drowning. Thats quite sadistic. That God you have sounds like a right cnut.

    No no apparently and according to JC
    J C wrote: »

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


  • #195
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Oh my here comes the angels angle.
    The Fallen Ones do seem to have been physically present and active in the Ante-diluvian World.


  • #196
    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 Fallen Ones do seem to have been physically present and active in the Ante-diluvian World.

    Still waiting for an answer to

    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?


  • #197
    EdgarFriendly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭EdgarFriendly


    J C wrote: »
    A Liger is a new species (although not a very viable one) as it has serious breeding difficulties.

    Nope, I'm afraid it isn't. It's a hybrid. The male liger is completely sterile, the female liger produces sterile offspring. Therefore, they are not a new species. In order for them to be a species, the male Liger and female Liger must be capable of producing offspring, which in turn themselves are capable of producing more offspring.
    J C wrote: »
    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.

    Eh, no. If the Earth was only 6,000 years old and the lion and tiger shared a common ancestor - they would both still be that same common ancestor, as 6,000 years is nowhere near enough time for full speciation to occur in mammals.
    J C wrote: »
    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 ...

    We have fossil evidence, and historical record to prove that wolves lived in Ireland. We have no fossil evidence of Kangaroos living in Ireland, or historical record to verify their existence here.
    J C wrote: »
    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!!

    So, from two animals - we've found enough genetic diversity to repopulate the planet? Right. You're not very good at this whole biology thing, are you?


  • #198
    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 Fallen Ones do seem to have been physically present and active in the Ante-diluvian World.

    Aliens "seem" to be physically present in recent times (there have been more sightings of aliens than god) does that mean you believe in aliens?


  • #199
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Days 298 wrote: »
    I find it interesting that in the year 2013 with all our technology and science people still choose to believe this crap. Thats what brings me back here. Its insightful, worrying and entertaining all at the same time.

    Lets not forget the flood hinges on the idea the earth is 6000 years old too :pac:
    The Flood doesn't hinge on a 'young earth' ... it is consistent with it but not dependent on it. A worldwide Flood could have happened recently on an 'old earth'.
    Such an Event does seem to have happened recently (as proven by the huge amounts of sedimentary rocks formed during it and still with us because they haven't eroded away).


  • #200
    Optimalprimerib
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭Optimalprimerib


    If I am to give my opinion, it seems to me that athiests talk more about religion than the religious.

    Is the bible especially the old testament not a case of symbologies over fact. In noahs case, wiping the slate clean and starting from scratch?

    Some may take it literally but they are "special" cases,


  • #201
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Aliens "seem" to be physically present in recent times (there have been more sightings of aliens than god) does that mean you believe in aliens?
    I don't just believe in Aliens ... I know they live.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Tope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭Tope


    J C wrote: »
    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'.
    aries-liger-cub-hercules-picture.jpg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger


    I actually had a whole paragraph about Ligers in my original post but I cut it out, thinking "Surely even JC won't try to use Ligers as proof that all those species of cat are capable of interbreeding?". That's why I used the words "viable offspring"; i.e. genetically healthy offspring that can go on to breed successfully themselves. I'm sure you're aware that Ligers and other hybrids are incapable of reproducing? (It's all to do with having the wrong numbers of chromosomes, look it up).

    So yes, hybrids such as Ligers and mules are possible among particularly closely related species, but these cannot continue breeding as a species as the males are invariably sterile, and although females are occasionally fertile they obviously can't breed with their male hybrid counterparts. So every time you want a Liger, you have to get a lion and a tiger to mate. Every time you want a mule, you have to get a horse and donkey to mate.


    So could you have another little think about how those many species of cat (and similarly the thousands of other species of every kind of animal) came about in the time since the ark and get back to me with a reasonable explanation?

    Edit: Just seen EdgarFriendly's post above which makes this point more succinctly!


  • #203
    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: »
    I don't just believe in Aliens ... I know they live.

    Excellent

    And I suppose gad made them too right? :rolleyes:


  • #204
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Optimalprimerib wrote: »
    If I am to give my opinion, it seems to me that athiests talk more about religion than the religious.
    I would suggest that this is a serious indictment on religious people ... that they have a lesser interest in the religions they profess ... than those who don't believe in them.
    Optimalprimerib wrote: »
    Is the bible especially the old testament not a case of symbologies over fact. In noahs case, wiping the slate clean and starting from scratch?

    Some may take it literally but they are "special" cases,
    If you treat everything in the Old Testament, that seems to be a literal account as metaphorical ... then you effectively reduce the Bible (and with it God) to the meaningless imaginations of some 'Bronze Age' desert tribe, which the Atheists often point to, as their 'faith position'.


  • #205
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Excellent

    And I suppose gad (God) made them too right? :rolleyes:
    Correct.


  • #206
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    D'oh, Spoilers dudes! Bad enough the trailer has given away most of the film.


  • #207
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    OMG! Spoiler!
    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.

    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?
    koth wrote: »
    Not if it's sea-water. The land would be poisoned after the waters receeded.

    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?

    where did all the fruit come from? and how was it stored to stop it rotting after a few weeks?

    Duh.

    280735.jpg

    MrP


  • #208
    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: »
    Correct.

    So will God go on another one of his mass murder sprees again soon but this time killing all life on all planets?


    http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c012.html

    Furthermore, the Bible clearly indicates that the fate of the universe (every other planet and star) is forever linked to God's timetable for mankind and the Earth. One day, Christ will return to Earth and complete the final act of man's redemption

    (2 Peter 3:9-10). He will destroy this present universe and create a new heavens and Earth (2 Peter 3:7,10; Revelations 21:1).

    All the stars and planets will be destroyed, along with the Earth.What bearing does this have on the question of extraterrestrial life? The timetable (and the whole reason) for this destruction and re-creation clearly seems to be based on God's plan for us Earthlings. If God had created intelligent life on other worlds, it is hard to imagine that their lives would be calibrated by the failures of Earth's inhabitants.

    It seems unlikely and unfair that their distant planets would be destroyed by God because of His plan for Earth. The implication of Scripture is that there are no other intelligent beings besides man, animals, and the angels.Why will God destroy the planets and stars along with Earth?

    When Adam sinned, ALL of creation was affected—the entire universe. Romans 8:18-22 teaches that all “creation was subjected to futility.” Although we are all familiar with the fact that God made man the ruler of Earth

    (Genesis 1:28), Scripture suggests that even the heavens are subject to mankind.“Thy heavens, the work of the Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou has ordained…Thou dost make him [man] to rule over the works of Thy hands, Thou has put all things under his feet” (Psalms 8:3,6).“And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all thehost of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage” (Deuteronomy 4:19).


  • #209
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    bumper234, you're new here. You need to slow down a little or JC will just ignore everything you say; as if you don't exist. If you give him too much rope too quickly, he'll side step you and run for the hills.

    JC is an enigma. He should be studied. I said he has a mental illness earlier, which was edited by Jernal but I wish to give further details on that. In fact let me just put this here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/breakfast-socrates/201003/creationism-mental-illness


  • #210
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


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


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Tope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭Tope


    I know this is so obvious it's barely worth mentioning, but isn't it both infuriating and slightly amusing how JC moves the goalposts every time one of his points is disproven, until his points become so nonsensical there is literally no possible reply?

    "Look at all these different species of cat, how do you explain that?"
    JC: "Well hey, look at all these different dogs! So there!"
    "Um, those dogs are all the same species. What about all those different species of cat, how do you explain that?"
    JC: "Cats can interbreed to produce new species, look at Ligers!"
    "Ligers aren't a species, they're sterile hybrids. So what about all those species of cats, how do you explain that?"
    JC: "Ligers are so a species, just a crap one that can't breed good, (or do other things good either). It would appear that the speciating capacity of all creatures is now practically exhausted ..."
    "???" *Head explodes*


Advertisement