Atheist challenge #2

Since ya'll had so much fun about the way He worded his challenge I figured I'd be a little milder. Not sure how old tacokid(Hovind?) is but, if he is really a kid I suspect that am more than twice his age. Plus, I have a couple of years forum debating experience, albeit not on this subject.

I would have liked to have posted in tacokids thread but.... 30 something pages! Come on guys, he didn't stand a chance even if he did know something. I posted on page fifteen or so last night and I come back to find over 31.

Chat room or forum board???

I'm not a big fan of linking from someones posts, nor am I a fan of someone who constantly gives none of their own knowledge, but simply links as response....but since this is not my forte' by any means, that will have to do.

I have some extra time, for some side posting and I have never been in a good science/Bible debate before, so I figured I'd give it a shot and gain a little experience points even if I crash and burn.

So, let's start from the top.... pick a subject and the questions you have about it. Please keep it short concise and slow, due to the fact that by the looks of the other thread, I'll get no help.

After we get off that subject, we can move to another one, nice and slow without a bombardment of postings that I may never catch up, for I am severely outnumbered.

Ya'll acted like you were hoping for a debate with more substance, so with a little help and consideration from ya'll I'll be able to provide you one.

I'll begin by reposting my link about Noahs ark from last night.

I know some had some additional questions that they felt weren't addressed in this link, so will you kindly show them here and I will get to them. Keep in mind that I may only have time for a post or two a night. So try to be patient, even if this forum is much faster than I am able to respond.

I'll start with the last comments I read(post#37 from tacokids thread) about Noah's ark not being a scientifically feasible situation.

For an answer to most all such comments see here...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...nimals_ark.asp


Be gentle....

__________________
Adam 332

Please fix your link--I only get an error when I try to use it.

__________________
"Truth would quickly cease to become stranger than fiction, once we got as used to it." -- H. L. Mencken

As ifriit already pointed out, the link doesn't work.

Second, post #37 appears to be Humanista's, not yours, so I'm not sure what aspect of the Noah's ark story you claim is "scientifically feasible".

Sure, I'll bite. Just one question:

How did predators survive after the flood? The need an adequate food source if we're to assume they developed into a healthy, thriving population. What did they eat?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Sear...otRecordStat=1

Maybe they sent out for a pizza. Do you think they had 30 min. or it's free delivery back then?

Okay, a nice simple one: Can you offer scientific evidence in favor of a specific age for the earth? If so, what's the method, what predictions does it make, and what possible problems would you see with this dating method?

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

If I find a series of multiple intact dinosaur nests with their eggs still neatly arranged in a circle and covered with grass and branches, can I assume that all of the sediment below them was "pre flood" or do I assume that all sediment above them was "post flood".

One of these assumptions needs to be correct in a flood scenario. A flood cannot move an egg nest so either the eggs were covered originally by the flood where they were laid (on pre-flood groud), or they were laid after the flood (on post flood groud).

Any thoughts?

__________________

Slow down, slow down. Let us do one thing at a time - focus on what the OP is on about: Noah's Ark.

__________________
'Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Rotate the rubber baby buggy bumpers!'

adam332, since I have already wasted more time than I can justify by wading through each fetid page of tacokid's droppings, perhaps you'll indulge me by reposting #37. I don't recall it.

Since our topic apparently is the Deluge, perhaps you'll start by answering a question. Without boring us with references to Genesis, give us your scientific evidence -- let me repeat that: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!! -- that such an event ever took place. How might we know that there was a world-wide flood ~4000 years ago (assuming you are a YEC). Which scientists are currently publishing in peer-reviewed journals who might be supporters of your position?

Is there anything to be said about such a viewpoint, or would you agree that this is nothing other than goofy cult belief?