Atheist challenge #2

Corey · #21 20th December 2002, 05:36 PM

Hye, Pete, quick question for you...is your avatar DEATHOFRATS?

Mechanical Bliss · #22 20th December 2002, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by adam332

We have Biblical reason to believe that before the fall there was no death yet there were plenty of animals.

Biblical evidence is not scientific evidence. It is mere speculation that is not substantiated. The rest of the paragraph rests on the assumption that the Bible is not only essentially true, but 100% true.

Essentially willing to eat whatever they could. IOW an animal doesn't have to chase a plant, so if the were hungry and still had any inclination to vegetation, a plant would be the easiest food to eat.

This does not account for the dietary requirements of some animals. I seriously doubt that some animals could subsist on a diet that would probably have little protein at all.

We see God's supernatural influence on the animals by their procession into the ark at the established time, it is just as logical to consider that God's influence was still at work after the ark was opened. Controlling His creatures to ensure it's repopulation.

Again, merely assumption.

The animals proceeding into the ark in such a fashion presents the same scientific questionability as their survival in the post flood conditions. Supernatural work of God may be the only explanation, for both.

So, really, you admit that you have zero scientific evidence and that, in reality, this situation is not "scientifically feasible". This is a situaion that's supernaturally feasible (which essentially means anything goes).

Regardless of the amount of scientific evidence I might dig up to answer the many questions I suredly will face on this subject, there will be those for which no scientific data can explain.

That's the fatal flaw in your argument which will sway nearly no one who opposes your conclusion about the flood.

We are talking about spiritual issue of creation, design, wrath, judgment, etc... which all have supernatural overtones. This in itself will leave one hard pressed to scientifically refute EVERYTHING.

Since the supernatural is not within the realm of science there is no grounds to "scientifically refute" or accept your claims.

I am not pulling a Tacokid copout, I just want us to all be clear, that to an extent the supernatural explains itself by mere definition.

The supernatural explains itself. Right...

That's basically your argument. You said that it was "scientifically feasible" yet apparently it is not.

Nor does anything you have mentioned negate all of the falsified evidence for the global flood and subsequently zero geologic evidence fot this global flood.

If there was a global flood, we should be able to make predictions about what types of evidence we would find. None of those pridictions have been supported when looking at all of the evidence.

adam332 · #23 20th December 2002, 06:42 PM

mechanical bliss,
do you ever take time to read?

I never said any comments I make will be purely scientific nor did I limit this thread to such, read the links there are scientific answers for many things there.
The bottom line is science has NO proof just their findings from which they proceed to come up with logical theories, again based on their methods.

This is absolutely no different from Creationists. We have a foundation of from which we consider truth, and we too design logical theories on findings. Your arguments rely on themselves to prove themselves as mine do. So you can remove yourself if you don't care to discuss this with the same openness that I am willing to share. This discussion is not mandatory, and I will try my best to produce items of scientific nature when and where possible. But as stated and is obvious science nor the Bible gives us every answer for every question, but both rely on their own standards for their own theories. I'm willing to meet science in the middle, but I see that your not. Bye....

I was hoping for some substance with a little more of maturity than tacokid has shown, if you are younger than he is then you have an excuse, if not read before you write. Your two for two making the evolution side show that they are closed minded and don't pay attention.

Pete Harcoff · #24 20th December 2002, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Corey
Hye, Pete, quick question for you...is your avatar DEATHOFRATS?

No, it's the monkey (masquerading as "death, stealer of pie") from Weebl and Bob.

seebs · #25 20th December 2002, 07:18 PM

Science has an accepted methodology for determining patterns from observations. This methodology is a good and useful one. I prefer to build my view of the physical world using it, since it seems to work.

Mechanical Bliss · #26 20th December 2002, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by adam332
mechanical bliss,
do you ever take time to read?

Apparently I did, when I read:

...about Noah's ark not being a scientifically feasible situation.

Your objective was to refute the claim of "Noah's ark not being a scientifically feasible situation". This seems to me to imply that you would be presenting an argument showing how Noah's ark could be a scientifically feasible situation. To show that it's a scientifically feasible situation, you need to present scientific evidence.

I clearly did pay attention, so get off that high horse.

Pete Harcoff · #27 20th December 2002, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by adam332
Ever consider many of the different kinds of animals did not survive for that very reason.

Or that this event was the turning point in the allowance for man to eat meat, so was it at this time that animals began to eat meat as well?

My understanding from talking to Biblical literalists was that carnivorous behavior began after the Fall. So, the assumption is that carnivores were on board the Ark.

We have Biblical reason to believe that before the fall there was no death yet there were plenty of animals. Sin brought upon all kinds of changes into the world, not just to man. The very ground was cursed, and in a sense violent where it had not been previously. Maybe this was God's design that this event was the turning point for meat eating. Even though we eat meat, we don't do so exclusively. So if this was the point which these freed animals released upon the ravaged world began to eat meat, there would be species lost. But these animals were hungry, and if it had been their nature to eat vegetation wouldn't they eat it, just as they might follow their new nature to eat meat as well? Essentially willing to eat whatever they could. IOW an animal doesn't have to chase a plant, so if the were hungry and still had any inclination to vegetation, a plant would be the easiest food to eat.

So, now you're assuming that animals were either herbivores or omnivores, and later became "pure" carnivores. However, to prove this point you'd have to show (as a general rule) that all the precursors of our current carnivores, were, in fact omnivorous. Those that weren't would have died out. You'd also have to show the mechanism by which they went from being omnivorous to pure carnivore. Without any real evidence, this is nothing more than speculation.

We see God's supernatural influence on the animals by their procession into the ark at the established time, it is just as logical to consider that God's influence was still at work after the ark was opened. Controlling His
creatures to ensure it's repopulation.

The animals proceeding into the ark in such a fashion presents the same scientific questionability as their survival in the post flood conditions. Supernatural work of God may be the only explanation, for both.

And this points to what I said earlier. Divine intervention. Which makes me wonder why I should believe the Biblical version of history over other religious beliefs, or for that matter, what the historical evidence actually tells us.

Regardless of the amount of scientific evidence I might dig up to answer the many questions I suredly will face on this subject, there will be those for which no scientific data can explain. We are talking about spiritual issue of creation, design, wrath, judgment, etc... which all have supernatural overtones. This in itself will leave one hard pressed to scientifically refute EVERYTHING.

The problem is, there are people out there who would like to see Genesis taught as fact in a science classroom. The minute you propose the supernatural, it ceases being science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...mtsthelens.asp

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/biology/

I glanced through those, but I don't see anything relevant to this specific line of discussion (predators surviving post-flood).

edited for clarity

Pete Harcoff · #28 20th December 2002, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by adam332
This is absolutely no different from Creationists.

Assuming we're talking YEC here, this is wrong. The reason scientists come up with things like the theory of evolution, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, etc, is because of the evidence. People went out, looked at the Earth and how things in the natural world behaved, and came to those conclusions.

YEC organizations seek to promote the idea of a young Earth, with spontaneous appearence of major life forms, a 4000 year old flood, etc, in spite of the evidence. Hence, most of the YEC literature I've read argues against the position of 'modern' biological and geological findings (for example, trying to prove radiometric dating is all one big ball of hooey).

So, I'm sorry, but these two positions are fundamentally different.

adam332 · #29 20th December 2002, 09:29 PM

MB,

this is exactly what I'm talking about. Please read before you write, I have not the time to waste scrolling of your lack of awareness. The scientifically feasible comment was in direct context of the link which was a rebuttal for humanista's post #37. Nothing else! And even then I never claimed that it explained everything they asked. DUH! This is why I asked if anyone had any ADDITIONAL questions that the link did not address. Maybe Pete can give you reading lessons, cause he sure seemed to understand.

Evolutionists,

might want to tell your little illiterate buddy to sit on the bench for this one, because I wouldn't him to be my spokesperson, for the same reason I didn't want Dan Quayle as president.

Just in case it isn't clear I have made no claims to know all the answers as brazen tacokid did. I find many of your points quite legitimate, this is what interseted me in attempting to debate against them, because every time I tackle a debate, I'm weak in, I LEARN. I come frome 30 yrs. of atheism training, so now that I'm converted, I wouldn't mind seeing a few of these quetions answered myself. The only thing I never suspected is; that I would be the one attempting to answer them.

Maybe that little bit of background will better let you see where I'm coming from.....

adam332 · #30 20th December 2002, 09:38 PM

Pete, but when exactly has this been a consistent working method?
Every generation reveals that science was wrong about something else. Science constantly changes their theories or completely rewrites them. Science constantly changes their method of analyzing evidence. One year they tell you this is the way to measure something, the next yr. they got a better system which gives them more accurate results. But, hold on last yr they were telling us that the method then was accurate. I like science, always have. But let's call a spade a spade, science is consistently inconsistent, forever finding that what they knew yesterday wasn't as right as they thought.