Atheist challenge #2

Humanista · #31 21st December 2002, 12:21 AM

Let us all concede to the obvious intellectual and educated authority of adam332. He has scolded all you ignorant, uneducated evolution supporters and you should all now slink away, properly chastized by his amazing command of the subject.

(sarcasm mode off)

Pete Harcoff · #32 21st December 2002, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by adam332
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.

We're getting off on a tangent, but...

You seem to have a rather skewed perspective of science here. If science really were so "consistently inconsistent", do you think you'd be typing out this message on a computer right now?

Really, if you're going to make claims like "science constantly changes their theories or completely rewrites them", then back it up with some hard evidence. I'll agree, scientists do change their views on things as newer evidence, better techniques, and more research comes into play. But to assume that they suddenly toss out everything they already know is just ridiculous.

Look at Newtonian physics. For awhile, people believed you could describe anything in the natural world with Newtonian physics. Then along comes the discovery of the quantum level and suddenly people realized they'd need a new set of rules, laws, and so forth for this new area (hence, quantum mechanics). But did this mean Newtonian physics suddenly become worthless? Of course not! I can still use, for example, Newton's Law of Gravity to calculate how objects will behave with respect to each other. Maybe not at the quantum level, but certainly at the "macro" level.

Now, I'm not so naive that I'm going to claim science is right about everything. Our knowledge of the world in which we live is incomplete (and will probably forever remain so). But we have a pretty good picture of the way many things work in our universe. If you want to suggest otherwise, good luck. Just remember to bring some evidence to the table when you do.

euphoric · #33 21st December 2002, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by adam332
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.

 

Since you've decided to be a complete jackass, I'll skip the pleasantries.  The problem here isn't MB's reading skills.  You're being obtuse here either deliberately or accidentally.  His point (as I understand it was) that if you appeal to the supernatural in any part of your argument you automatically fail to provide a scenario that is "scientifically feasible."

Originally posted by adam332
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.

Frankly, you're display of intelect so far has been more than slightly lacking, so before you begin running your mouth about other peoples intellectual capabilities, you might want to take a look at whether you know enough about this subject to even think about debating it.

Originally posted by adam332
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.....

So you've been a complete jerk in the span of a half dozen posts on a subject that you admit you don't know a great deal about.  Man, the reasons for taking you seriously are stacking up by the minute.

30 years of atheism training?  Who exactly trained you to be an atheist?

Bottom line, try being less obnoxious and you might get a few questions answered.  Keep heading down your current path, and the only thing you'll get is eaten alive and then ignored, and deservedly so.

-brett

Doubting Thomas II · #34 21st December 2002, 06:32 AM

I'm confused, Adam332. Throughout this thread, you've made a point of distancing yourself from the likes of tacokid. Yet, like him, you've brought no science to the table, just a rehashing of various religious speculations. I asked you a specific question early in this thread. So far, you've not even tried to answer it. Are you deliberately ignoring me? Can you not answer the question? Is my requirement that you not resort to useless Biblical references too much a handicap to your "scientific" viewpoint? An answer, one way or the other, would be appropriate.

Or are you simply loathe to admit that your views on the flood/Noah are nothing more than subliterate fantasies without even a tincture of legitimacy?

BTW, resorting to calling me (or others like me) close-minded because I refuse to mix up actual science with mythology won't get you far with anyone who doesn't already buy your brand of snake oil. You're in a science forum. Try to conduct yourself as such.

In case your memory is short, here's the challenge I posed: Resorting to legitimate scientific findings, give me your best evidence of a world-wide flood ~4000 years ago. Until you can adequately answer this challenge, all talk of Noah's Ark is mental masturbation at its worst.

notto · #35 21st December 2002, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by adam332
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.

It is the consistent method that gives us better and better results. The method is consistent, the evidence it uncovers may be refined. What is your alternative?

It is this ability to adapt and accept new evidence that makes it "science".

This is why creationism is not science. There is no amount of evidence that will sway a creationist.

Just read the "tenants" at AIG or ICR. They admit that if evidence is against YEC, then it is wrong, instead of changing their "theory" to adjust to new evidence. This is anti-science.

The "theory" of creation is not falsifiable because we can always pull out the "Everything is possible with God", therefore, it is not scientific and cannot be studied, addressed, and modified with this same method.

What one piece of evidence would falsify the "Creation Theory"? Is there any piece of scientific evidence that would cause you to leave this belief behind? If your answer is "No", they by admission, the theory in your mind is not falsifiable, and therfore, is not science and you are not addressing it with scientific method.

JohnR7 · #36 21st December 2002, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by MSBS
2. Why doesn't the Y chromosome Adam not match with the mitochondrial Eve in age, and why doesn't he date back to the flood 4,500 years ago (only Noah and his sons survived so Noah would be the most rescent common anscestor).

That is two different questons. Right now, they believe that Europe was founded by 4/5 good gathers, that have been around for a while. But a newcomer was a food producer, that dates back about 6000 years. They make up 1/5 of the DNA in Europe, but they had a impact on most all of Europe.

One thing we know from our Bible. Adam from ch 2 of Gen. was a food producer. We know he was here 6000 years ago. In ch 1 we have food gathers. There were here actually before God's day of rest in creation. One who day of creaton seperates the food gather from the food producer.

My guess would be that the 7 day of creation day is 64 million years. So you tell me, has man been around for 64 million years? Because science says they have only been around 200,000 years.

notto · #37 21st December 2002, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by JohnR7
That is two different questons. Right now, they believe that Europe was founded by 4/5 good gathers, that have been around for a while. But a newcomer was a food producer, that dates back about 6000 years. They make up 1/5 of the DNA in Europe, but they had a impact on most all of Europe.

You have yet to provide any evidence that suggests that "they" believe that these were the FIRST "food producers". They may have been the first agricultural society in Europe, but as you have been shown, there is evidence that there were several other agricultural societies in existence before this time and before agriculture came to Europe.

Mechanical Bliss · #38 21st December 2002, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by adam332
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.....

 :rolleyes:

That post isn't even worth a reply.

At the beginning of the thread you stated that you'd start with the last comments you read about Noah's Ark not being a scientifically feasible situation. Apparently whether or not the Noah's Ark scenario was scientifically feasible is an issue here. That means in order to show that the Noah's Ark scenario is indeed scientifically feasible you need to present scientific evidence. Furthemore, this is the science forum after all, so science is the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the infinitely possible Biblical interpretations of the Noah's Ark story and the consequences of such interpretations where you have to make up unsubstantiated assumptions (e.g., animals instantaneously changing their eating behavior) to try to support your interpretation, then apologetics is might be the place for you to debate the validity of the Noah's Ark story.

tacoman528 · #39 21st December 2002, 02:24 PM

Hey, its me again!!!
about the issue that I am Hovind,
there's nothing that I can do to make you believe that I'm not so I'll just kinda sit here and help answer Adam's questions considering that the thread that I posted is hopelessly gone. Lets try to stay on subject this time.

tacoman528 · #40 21st December 2002, 02:30 PM

To Mechanical,

Instead of Insulting, maybe you should give a reason for why evolution is so scientific.