The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Vivisectus

JC wrote:

Carnivorous behavior did not start until after the fall

So there was a time when spiders where herbivores? What about vipers? Did they need venom to immobilize and kill particularly recalcitrant plants? Did the sabre-toothed tiger stalk bellicose cabbages with those massive fangs, together with herds of vegetarian velociraptors?

And then something re-wired all these animals brains to include hunting instincts, where before they had none, in a sudden event?

That is a pretty extreme claim, the latest one in a string of there. Is there some extraordinary evidence to back it up?

Pherekydes

Vivisectus wrote: »

And then something re-wired all these animals brains to include hunting instincts, where before they had none, in a sudden event?

That is a pretty extreme claim, the latest one in a string of there. Is there some extraordinary evidence to back it up?

It's probably in AnswersInGenesis, the scientific reference website for the scientifically illiterate.

Mr. CooL ICE

SW wrote: »

Would that not also make God bad for the global genocide that was a result of the flood?

But... but... god is just and loves you <insert exclamation marks and smiley face>

Vivisectus

No its a fair enough point: God merely instructed Moses to start a war, not to go the whole hog and commit genocide and slavery.

That is what seems to be happening here though (joshua10):

So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

robindch

Vivisectus wrote: »

And then something re-wired all these animals brains to include hunting instincts, where before they had none, in a sudden event?

Not a big thing - they just had to rewire themselves to cope with what are effectively plants that can run away very quickly.

Creationism 101.

J C

SW wrote: »

Would that not also make God bad for the global genocide that was a result of the flood?

Not when the people of the world had all become irredeemably evil ... and their every though was evil.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

Not when the people of the world had all become irredeemably evil ... and their every though was evil.

You have not answered http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92454579&postcount=1742


Or explained why God orders massacres http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92456758&postcount=1745

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92440163&postcount=1736


And what about the marsupials? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92409052&postcount=1716

You have a fascinating type of 'science', faced with questions you cannot answer you just stick your fingers in your ears and chant 'nasty questions go away, nasty questions go away'.

J C

Vivisectus wrote: »

So there was a time when spiders where herbivores? What about vipers? Did they need venom to immobilize and kill particularly recalcitrant plants? Did the sabre-toothed tiger stalk bellicose cabbages with those massive fangs, together with herds of vegetarian velociraptors?

And then something re-wired all these animals brains to include hunting instincts, where before they had none, in a sudden event?

The Fall 're-wired' many things ... by introducing death and disease ... it would undoubtedly have had significant effects on the usage to which previously innocuous structures were now put to.
Venom, for example could have been used to digest plant material before the fall ... and then was used to kill other animals afterwards.
Similarly, sharp teeth are no burden when it comes to eating plants ... and the sabre-toothed tiger's teeth seem to have become a bit of a liability when the switch occurred from rooting out plant bulbs ... to trying to kill animals.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

The Fall 're-wired' many things ... by introducing death and disease ... it would undoubtedly have had significant effects on the usage to which previously innocuous structures were now put to.
Venom, for example could have been used to digest plant material before the fall ... and then was used to kill other animals afterwards.
Similarly, sharp teeth are no burden when it comes to eating plants ... and the sabre-toothed tiger's teeth seem to have become a bit of a liability when the switch from rooting out plant bulbs to trying kill animals occurred.

Any evidence that venom does this?

In what way were the sabre-toothed tiger's teeth a liability?

J C

obplayer wrote: »

Any evidence that venom does this?

Venom is a complex mixture of various cell poisons that act by affecting the working of the cells and in many cases breaking down the cell structures.

obplayer wrote: »

In what way were the sabre-toothed tiger's teeth a liability?

They were completely overshot.:)
... and only useful for scratching their backs ... and rooting out plant bulbs.

J C

Vivisectus wrote: »

Genocide is only cool if God tells you to do so.

see my answer here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92451151&postcount=1740

J C

obplayer wrote: »

Where are the remains of the marsupials who must have made the trek from the Mediterranean area to Australia? Why are they only found in Australia? And if it is because they were so few from the ark how did those few survive that enormous trek?. Koala bears only eat from plants indigenous to Australia, mostly eucalyptus leaves.
'There are well over 600 varieties of eucalypts. Koalas eat only some of these. They are very fussy eaters and have strong preferences for different types of gum leaves. Within a particular area, as few as one, and generally no more than two or three species of eucalypt will be regularly browsed (we call these 'primary browse trees') while a variety of other species, including some non-eucalypts, appear to be browsed occasionally or used for just sitting or sleeping in.'
https://www.savethekoala.com/about-koalas/interesting-facts

How did they survive the trek?

It probably took them hundreds of years to reach Australia ... where they were cut off from natural predators by rising seas. Please also note that marsupials aren't confined to Australia ... they're also found in the Americas.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

It probably took them hundreds of years to reach Australia ... where they were cut off from natural predators by rising seas. Please also note that marsupials aren't confined to Australia ... they're also found in the Americas.

Fine, the question is still where the record of this epic march from the Med is, why no fossils anywhere en-route. And what did the koalas eat, the furthest that Eucalyptus trees are found from Australia is New Guinea, Indonesia and the Philippines. A long trek from the Med without lunch.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

Venom is a complex mixture of various cell poisons that act by affecting the working of the cells and in many cases breaking down the cell structures.

They were completely overshot.:)
... and only useful for scratching their backs ... and rooting out plant bulbs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23270323
'The nervous system is a primary target for animal venoms as the impairment of its function results in the fast and efficient immobilization or death of a prey. There are numerous evidences about effects of crude snake venoms or isolated toxins on peripheral nervous system'
What use is this against plants?

I think you would find a sabre-toothed tiger's teeth quite unpleasant in your body.

J C

obplayer wrote: »

Fine, the question is still where the record of this epic march from the Med is, why no fossils anywhere en-route. And what did the koalas eat, the furthest that Eucalyptus trees are found from Australia is New Guinea, Indonesia and the Philippines. A long trek from the Med without lunch.

They probably only became obligate eaters of Eucalyptus ... when they got to Australasia.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

They probably only became obligate eaters of Eucalyptus ... when they got to Australasia.

In 4000 years they completely re-designed their digestive system? Created enzymes for neutralising toxins, developed a very long caecum, slowed their digestive process to get maximum nourishment?

J C

obplayer wrote: »

In 4000 years they completely re-designed their digestive system? Created enzymes for neutralising toxins, developed a very long caecum, slowed their digestive process to get maximum nourishment?

They already had the genetic diversity to do this ... 4 billion years wouldn't be sufficient to produce it ... if they didn't.

Gordon

J C wrote: »

Genocide is never 'cool' ... and Moses was a very very bad guy indeed.

These verses go to show that the people who should know best ... are often those who behave worst.

Genocide is cool if it's in a 'just war' though, right? Like murder is only cool if it's done by the second Jesus, because apparently it's not murder if Jesus does it, so you say.

J C

obplayer wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23270323
'The nervous system is a primary target for animal venoms as the impairment of its function results in the fast and efficient immobilization or death of a prey. There are numerous evidences about effects of crude snake venoms or isolated toxins on peripheral nervous system'
What use is this against plants?

Snake venom is modified saliva ... so it's pre-fall role in digestion is obvious.
Quote:-
Snake venom is highly modified saliva[1] containing zootoxins that facilitates the immobilization and digestion of prey, and defends against a threat. It is injected by unique fangs after a bite but some species are also able to spit.[2]

The glands that secrete the zootoxins are a modification of the parotid salivary gland found in other vertebrates and are usually situated on each side of the head, below and behind the eye and encapsulated in a muscular sheath. The glands have large alveoli in which the synthesized venom is stored before being conveyed by a duct to the base of channeled or tubular fangs through which it is ejected.

Venoms contain more than 20 different compounds, mostly proteins and polypeptides.[3] A complex mixture of proteins, enzymes, and various other substances with toxic and lethal properties[2] serves to immobilize the prey animal,[5] enzymes play an important role in the digestion of prey,[4] and various other substances are responsible for important but non-lethal biological effects.

obplayer wrote: »

I think you would find a sabre-toothed tiger's teeth quite unpleasant in your body.

Just like an Elephant's tusk would also be quite 'unpleasant' too in your body.
... but isn't a very efficient hunting accessory.

J C

Gordon wrote: »

Genocide is cool if it's in a 'just war' though, right? Like murder is only cool if it's done by the second Jesus, because apparently it's not murder if Jesus does it, so you say.

You're getting into such moral knots ... that even I, cannot un-tangle them.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Not when the people of the world had all become irredeemably evil ... and their every though was evil.

Every child was "irredeemably evil"? Newborn children? You don't think it's evil to kill infants?

I can think of no crime that justifies such a wicked act, especially when it's every child on Earth. Your god committed an act of profound evil no matter how you look at it.

Brian Shanahan

obplayer wrote: »

In what way were the sabre-toothed tiger's teeth a liability?

He's probably referring to the fact that the Tiger's front teeth got so big that they couldn't properly use their jaws to digest their food, because a) they couldn't get the food in, and b) they didn't have enough power to properly chew. There are other evolutionary factors why increasing teeth size as a weapon is eventually a dead end, but all of them make his use of the sabre toothed tiger an extremely bad analogy for what he is trying to prove (not that there are any analogies better for him to use), for the following reasons:
1) He is using an evolutionary process to try and prove creationism!
2) The problems faced by that and other feline species (the sabre tooth wasn't the only hunter to fall into the bigger teeth trap) with their teeth are magnified if they are herbivores, because now you not alone have the problems above, you've got the wrong set of teeth eating plant matter. That is why digging herbivores have claws for that purpose.
I'm sure there are more reasons, but those two are the really obvious ones.

Doctor Jimbob

Only JC could use evolution as evidence of evolution being untrue. Facedesk.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He's probably referring to the fact that the Tiger's front teeth got so big that they couldn't properly use their jaws to digest their food, because a) they couldn't get the food in, and b) they didn't have enough power to properly chew. There are other evolutionary factors why increasing teeth size as a weapon is eventually a dead end, but all of them make his use of the sabre toothed tiger an extremely bad analogy for what he is trying to prove (not that there are any analogies better for him to use), for the following reasons:
1) He is using an evolutionary process to try and prove creationism!

I'm using a NS argument ... the sabre tooth is extinct ... and probably due to reason you have cited.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

2) The problems faced by that and other feline species (the sabre tooth wasn't the only hunter to fall into the bigger teeth trap) with their teeth are magnified if they are herbivores, because now you not alone have the problems above, you've got the wrong set of teeth eating plant matter. That is why digging herbivores have claws for that purpose.

OK ... this all started when, in response to a question, I stated that the Sabre-tooth Tiger (in common with all other animals) was originally vegetarian (before the Fall) ... and somebody asked me to explain the prominent canines, if they were vegetarians ... so I'll 'cut to the chase' and simply refer you to this vegetarian creature that is alive today which also has prominent canines (it's a Chinese Water Deer) ... and I wouldn't wrestle with this particular 'bambi' in a tight corner!!! ...
... and I'll leave you to explain why it has canines that are every bit as prominent and dangerous as a young sabre tooth tiger:):-



Here is the skull (of the deer and not the tiger) in all it's glory
https://www.boneroom.com/img/idPics/3227_1large.jpg

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I'm using a NS argument ... the sabre tooth is extinct ... and probably due to reason you have cited.


OK ... this all started when, in response to a question, I stated that the Sabre-tooth Tiger (in common with all other animals) was originally vegetarian (before the Fall) ... and somebody asked me to explain the prominent canines, if they were vegetarians ... so I'll 'cut to the chase' and simply refer you to this vegetarian creature that is alive today which also has prominent canines (it's a Chinese Water Deer) ... and I wouldn't wrestle with this particular 'bambi' in a tight corner!!! ...
... and I'll leave you to explain why it has canines that are every bit as prominent and dangerous as a young sabre tooth tiger:):-



Here is the skull (of the deer and not the tiger) in all it's glory
https://www.boneroom.com/img/idPics/3227_1large.jpg

I'm going to take on your own style here and completely ignore your points yet still use them against you. Ok? Cool.

If all animals were designed by an all knowing creator why the feck did he give a deer fangs?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If all animals were designed by an all knowing creator why the feck did he give a deer fangs?

Probably to allow them defend themselves after the Fall ... and to allow them to root up plant food both before and after the Fall.:cool:

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

Probably to allow them defend themselves after the Fall ... and to allow them to root up plant food both before and after the Fall.:cool:

The views of an extremist Christian are quite interesting .
How do you convince yourself that science supports your views ?
How do you explain fossils which date back to before the beginning of the bible?i.e dinosaur fossils

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

The views of an extremist Christian are quite interesting .

Your 'interest' is mis-placed then ... because I'm not an 'extremist' on anything ... I'm a moderate liberal Christian that loves and respects all persons of all faiths and none ... and I'd suggest that you should adopt this approach as well.:)

EoghanIRL wrote: »

How do you convince yourself that science supports your views ?
How do you explain fossils which date back to before the beginning of the bible?i.e dinosaur fossils

Why do you say they date back before Genesis?
It all began (including dinosaurs) with the Creation Account in Genesis ... and dinosaur fossils, just like most other fossils, were produced during Noah's Flood.

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

Your 'interest' is mis-placed then ... because I'm not an 'extremist' on anything ... I'm a moderate liberal Christian that loves and respects all persons of all faiths and none ... and I'd suggest that you should adopt this approach as well.:)

Why do you say they date back before Genesis?
It all began (including dinosaurs) with the Creation Account in Genesis ... and dinosaur fossils, just like most other fossils, were produced during Noah's Flood.

Ok ,
How old is the earth in your opinion ?

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Ok ,
How old is the earth in your opinion ?

Less than 10,000 sideral years.