Atheist challenge #2

[adam332]

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/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp


Be gentle....

 

[ifriit]

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

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by adam332

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

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".

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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?

 

[JohnR7]

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

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Search/default.asp?qu=noah&pg=1&abs=&DoNotRecordStat=1

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Sure, I'll bite. Just one question: 

What did they eat?

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

 

[seebs]

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?

 

[notto]

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?

 

[David Gould]

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

 

[Doubting Thomas II]

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?

 

[MSBS]

Adam,
Much has been made of the genetic bottleneck that would have occured during the great flood. Another has been the whole mitochondrial Eve/faster evolution of mito sequences so that, according to creationists, the 'real' mitochondrial Eve is only 6,000 years old. Explain to me then:

1. Why would the mitochondrial Eve date back 6,000 years and not 4,500 years to the bottlenecking event at the flood.

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).

3. Since we have such a system that determines a most recent common anscestor using either the Y-chromosome (or Z chromosome in insects)
and the mitochondria, why haven't creation scientists used these techniques to show a bottleneck event 4.500 years ago during the great flood, when ALL animals would have had to have had only a single pair of anscestors?

 

[judy]

I have a question Adam.

What is the definition of the word "kind?"

Thank you.

 

[adam332]

Hey folks,

what part of one or two posts a day didn't I iterate well enough. Two pages and ya'll haven't even read the link because I goofed. Peter is the only one here who I know has already read the link and asked a question he knew wasn't addressed there.... The link is fixed. 

Seebs,

the subject is Noahs ark for now, please read the OP.

Mechanical Bliss,

I know post 37 was Humanista's, please read my words closely..."I'll start with THE LAST COMMENTS I READ(post#37 from tacokids thread) ABOUT NOAH'S ARK not being a scientifically feasible situation."

 

[seebs]

Okay, Noah's ark.

How many land animals were on the Ark?

How long after the Ark landed was it before there were enough cattle and sheep for people to eat meat again?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by MSBS
Adam,
Much has been made of the genetic bottleneck that would have occured during the great flood. Another has been the whole mitochondrial Eve/faster evolution of mito sequences so that, according to creationists, the 'real' mitochondrial Eve is only 6,000 years old. Explain to me then:

1. Why would the mitochondrial Eve date back 6,000 years and not 4,500 years to the bottlenecking event at the flood.

Because some of the wives of Noah's sons were not in the same line as Noah's wife?

 

[ocean]

One question. The Bible says that a dove return with an olive branch after the flood had ended. Where did the olive tree come from? If the entire world was flooded, there couldn't have been a tree left ANYWHERE.

The Noah's Ark story is obviously a myth.

 

[seebs]

I assume the tree was just a little moist, having been under water for 40 days.

Now, when I overwater a plant, it dies within a month, but maybe God's got a green thumb.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by adam332
Peter is the only one here who I know has already read the link and asked a question he knew wasn't addressed there....

That's because I've never seen it addressed anywhere (nor the other questions I asked; with the exception of the flood waters, although what explanations I've read conveniently leave out the laws of physics).

I've asked some of these before, and unfortunately, the only answers I ever get always involve Divine intervention. But if you want to convince me this was a real-world event (and relatively recent one, at that), then I need a better explanation.

 

[adam332]

Pete,

thanks for re-posting your question here.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here's what appears to be some answers...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_mtsthelens.asp

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

 

[adam332]

Seebs,

man didn't eat meat before the flood.