Atheist challenge #2

[LewisWildermuth]

___________

Doupting Thomas II,

you said;

"...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)."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Science/DailyNews/flood000914.html

http://www.christianstudycenter.com/evidence/oceancirc.htm

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html

http://www.nwcreation.net/geologyflood.html

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/99/11/flood.html

http://missinguniversemuseum.com/Exhibit23.htm

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/flood.html

Not one of these links are scientific documents.

Two of them are talking about localised flooding of the Black Sea which has been known about for decades.

So where are the scientific links?

You said;

"Which scientists are currently publishing in peer-reviewed journals who might be supporters of your position?"

Whose peers are you referring to? Ohhhhh you mean the evolutionary scientists.... Now why would they publish something they don't believe? I wouldn't if I were them.

Well, you see, the best thing a scientist can do for his carreer is to chalange and debunk a well established theory. THat is what gets them nobel prises and grants to continue their studies So why has none of them debunked such a "weak" theory as evolution yet?

As far as your own admition that you have no moral integrity and would cover up anything that you might not agree with... I think that it speaks volumes about the mentality of most YEC's.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by adam332

First thought is; where is this artifact so that I may better assess. Secondly, it makes more sense for it to have been post flood, being the well preserved state that you described it in.

There are many examples of dinosaur nests that have been found.


http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/eggs/Types/theropods.html
http://www.gondwanastudios.com/img/img0020.jpg
http://www.nhm.org/journey/prehist/saur/oviraptosaurs.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0927_TVdinoeggs.html
http://www.nhm.org/projectpatagonia/fieldnotes1.html
http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL3/dinoeggpairs.html
http://www.oakridger.com/stories/092701/stt_0927010039.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A684425
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/de_4/5c5249e.htm

Based on your statements, I can assume that anything that I find in layers of sediment above these finds can be considered post flood. Is that correct?

 

[adam332]

Euphoric,
the link did address the question if you had read throught the whole thing like I had to. And again, they are your tests not ours. As mentioned before the results for said dating methods hugely vary. Thus are unreliable to take one of the many proposed dates and try refute anything. Why do you act as if these dating methods are absolute? Why are ya'll insisting on proof against dates that the mainstream scientific community doesn't agree on?

Yes, I would agree that one could expect there was a genetic bottleneck with those species, the reason why it has,'t been found is probably cause the dating method is inconsistent. As see saw testifies to...

Seesaw,
yep that's exactly right...."the last you read". But, as you know science changes their ming all the time about their accuracy and now has new stuff and well, out with the old and in with the new, eh? The more recent results yield numbers much lower in the range of what is being discussed.

 

[adam332]

Lewis wide mouth,
the only moral integrity that is questioned by my statement is theirs. IF I WERE THEM. As an atheists scientist, that is. And I'm glad that you admitted that such types of people as them would cover-up anything.

There are enormous amounts of scientifc theories, evidence given in those links. And for some who profess science so much you sure make some illogical statements. No one is going to introduce any teaching, theory, or evidence, that shakes the foundation of their belief. Y'all don't teach creationism. That's fine only an idiot evolutionist would do such, but I can see your pushing the envelope though.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by adam332
Lewis wide mouth,

Is there really a need for such immature name calling?

the only moral integrity that is questioned by my statement is theirs. IF I WERE THEM.

Funny. How does what YOU would do if you were "an atheist scientist" prove what real "atheist scientists" would do in the same situation? Just because your sense of ethics is rather shady doesn't mean everyone else's is, too.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Is there really a need for such immature name calling?

he seems to think so. Check his history; I mentioned that he gets abusive when he's stumped. He responded to me in an abusive manner (big surprise). I'm surprised that the mods haven't warned him yet. 

Funny. How does what YOU would do if you were "an atheist scientist" prove what real "atheist scientists" would do in the same situation? Just because your sense of ethics is rather shady doesn't mean everyone else's is, too.

He expects "Atheist Scientists" to distort results to prove whatever dogma they believe in, rather like he wants "Christian Scientists" (including himself, if he were one) to do.

Sad, really....

 

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by adam332
Lewis wide mouth,
the only moral integrity that is questioned by my statement is theirs. IF I WERE THEM. As an atheists scientist, that is. And I'm glad that you admitted that such types of people as them would cover-up anything.

There are enormous amounts of scientifc theories, evidence given in those links. And for some who profess science so much you sure make some illogical statements. No one is going to introduce any teaching, theory, or evidence, that shakes the foundation of their belief. Y'all don't teach creationism. That's fine only an idiot evolutionist would do such, but I can see your pushing the envelope though.

First off Wildermuth is my last name, I was born with it and there is nothing I can do about it. Grade school name calling is not something as a Christian we are to do. I happen to like my name so please do not make fun of it again.

Now if you would lie about things if you were in a scientists position does refect on your own personal moral code. I did not stop lying because I became a Christian, I was raised to believe that lying was a bad thing irregardles of religion. If I were an atheist again I would feel no more compelled to lie than I do now. You however feel seem to feel that you would simply throw out all your morals if you were not a Christian.

I have looked over the sites you have provided and stated the obvious, they are not what you were asked to supply.

If you wish to argue a single point off of any of the sites you cited then please pick one and we can debate it in a thread you start. It would take me too long and I would be off topic if I tried to point out every error in them here.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by adam332
Lewis wide mouth,
the only moral integrity that is questioned by my statement is theirs. IF I WERE THEM.

So... If you were in that kind of position, you think you would lie. Why is that?

Or are you really saying "If I were that person, I would lie" - in which case, what is your reason for asserting this? I would say that this is a fairly serious allegation, which requires support. I mean, otherwise, it'd look perilous close to false witness.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by adam332
Euphoric,
the link did address the question if you had read throught the whole thing like I had to. And again, they are your tests not ours. As mentioned before the results for said dating methods hugely vary. Thus are unreliable to take one of the many proposed dates and try refute anything. Why do you act as if these dating methods are absolute? Why are ya'll insisting on proof against dates that the mainstream scientific community doesn't agree on?

I did read the link, twice in fact.  I would bet money that I understand the issues discussed there better than you do.  If you want to be a jerk, I'll be happy to accomodate you in kind.  You don't understand the issue you're discussing.  You got stumped by a question you didn't understand and you pasted a link to an article you thought addressed the question.  It doesn't.  When confronted by me about that deficiency, you got cranky and decided to try a cheap cop out.  It's not the dating method that's the problem. 

Why don't you read the following material on Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, and maybe then you'll understand the issue well enough to not sound like fool in this discussion.

http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/00_11now/001101b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

Originally posted by adam332
Yes, I would agree that one could expect there was a genetic bottleneck with those species, the reason why it has,'t been found is probably cause the dating method is inconsistent. As see saw testifies to...

Well, all due respect to Seesaw, I'll trust the thousands of geneticists who work on these issues.  You can't pawn this off on the method.  If the Flood story were true, all clean "kinds" would have a) have a genetic bottleneck around 4500 years ago and b) they would all have a bottle neck at the same point in history regardless of the date.  This is not the case.  You have no explanation, so I will expect further tantrums and ad hominem attacks.

Originally posted by adam332
Seesaw,
yep that's exactly right...."the last you read". But, as you know science changes their ming all the time about their accuracy and now has new stuff and well, out with the old and in with the new, eh? The more recent results yield numbers much lower in the range of what is being discussed.

I think Seesaw worded this in a way that may not have conveyed his meaning accurately.  I don't know that for cerain, but I think he meant that the self-correcting mechanisms of science allow it to refine it's accuracy.  In some cases that means fairly large changes in dates or other results.  In most cases the refinement is relatively minor.  To translate this into casting out all scientific procedures and results is something only a YEC could come up with.

-brett

 

[Corey]

Tacoman & Adam, you still have not responded to my question.

Please explain the nonuniform distribution of iridium at the K-T Boundary if the Flood was true. Such an explanation should include a point-by-point refutation of the current hypothesis.

 

[Hector Medina]

tacoman528,

First of all, You will have to give me a little more proof than that for me to believe that Dr. Hovind didn't go to a regular college. Second of all, I don't care if he didn't have a high school degree, his arguments are scientific, reasonable, and all the ones I've seen go along with what the Bible says. Third of all, why are you trying to change the subject again.


As usual I'm behind you 110%!

You judge people by the content of their charactar not by pieces of paper and what not!


In Christ,

Hector

 

[lithium.]

His arguments are not scientific, and reasonable there illogical, and there idiotic. No real scientist in the science community supports any of the stuff he says. He is a joke.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
You judge people by the content of their charactar not by pieces of paper and what not!

I agree, people should focus on Hovind's arguments, which, under scrutiny, fall apart very easily. The issues of his credentials, personal conduct, etc, should be more an issue Christians should be concerned with, rather than "evolutionists".

However, the reason people pick on Hovind's credentials is because Hovind flaunts those credentials as though that puts him on even footing with all the other scientists with PhD's of their own. Well, I'm sorry, but a PhD in "Christian education" (whatever that is) is no substitute for a PhD in biology, geology, physics, and other recognized sciences that Hovind argues against. Furthermore, when one investigates the process by which Hovind obtained his PhD (like reviewing his dissertation, for example), the fact he calls himself "Dr." is a slap in the face of people with doctorates from accredited institutions. Basically, if everyone went out and obtained the themselves a PhD by the same means Hovind did, the title "Dr." would lose all meaning.

Another thing about that whole "credentials" argument I find kind of funny, is whenever a creationist refuses to read material by Dawkins or Gould or whoever, on the grounds that it's "atheist propaganda" or some other nonsensical reasoning.

 

[Hector Medina]

seesaw,

Many think not.
Me and The Tacokid aren't the only 2.

Hovind has a lot more support and less oposition than you think..........

In Christ,

Hector

 

[lithium.]

Have you ever heard of Crackpots? Because that is the only so called scientists that support him.

I would love for you to find someone at M.I.T or berkeley or any major college that does real scientific research that supports him.

 

[Hector Medina]

Pete,

Man,I think its all about m$n$y.

The U.S.(and elsewhere)is based on $o$e$

I'm in college with that viewpoint.
And will be in university that same way.

Yes I'll probably go to a good and renowned institution with satans greedy demons walking in it,what a fallen world this is.


God Bless,

Hector

"History is the biggest set of lies agreed upon"

--Napoleon Bonaparte
anonymous

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
Hovind has a lot more support and less oposition than you think..........

Unfortunately, I've yet to see any of Hovind's "supporters" (this is, people who whole-heartily believe everything Hovind says) actually be able to stand up and support their position. Every time I see a Hovind initiate try to debate Hovind's position, they wind up with egg on their face.

The only reason I think so many people flock to Hovind is because they are seeking validation of their own beliefs. It's much easier to believe the a literal Bible is 100% true and infallible if you have someone tell you all the apparent "contradictory" evidence is chock full of holes.

I don't have a problem with that per-say. It's when, however, these people try to change what others think, then they have to be to defend their position. I haven't seen anyone be able to do this for Hovind. I'm waiting, though (but not holding my breath).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by adam332
Nathan,

ever notice how your little smiley guy has someones leather jock on his face. Just thought I'd point it out, thought maybe ya' don't want to give anyone the wrong/right?? appearance of your lifestyle choice.

Ah Adam, I can always count on you for a laugh...

You're the first person I've met who didn't know what that smiley means. Ever hear of Mick Foley?

Have a nice day!

 

[Terry.Trent]

First of all-i know this topic is 3.25 months old.

OK-this angers me. I have been reading this thread for 1 and a half hours. it is now 1:00 in the morning, and i have found that adam and tacoman can't back up what they are saying. i know that i couldn't, seeing as how i am personally just learning all this stuff myself. I am a Christian, and i'm not afraid to admit it. The atheists in this forum have probably heard this many, many times before, but Christianity is based on faith. We do not have to provide any proof-whatsoever. We beleive that Jesus died for us and that God can't lie. So what is said in the bible, whether it is myth-like or not, is true.

I am actually very annoyed with the fact that the whole topic got completly off topic.

Tacoman-
I like you, really, but you really don't have much to support what you were saying!

Adam-You actually have valid arguments, unfortunately, Tacoman's going-back-and-forths threw off everything you could have used.

I appologize to the atheists that came to this topic with hopes of getting answers. This topic was very poorly debated. The first thing i would suggest-STAY ON TOPIC. The second thing i would suggest-MAKE A NEW TOPIC TO DISCUSS HOVIND. 1/4th of this topic was about Hovind, discussing his credibility.

In Christ
-Terry L. Trent, Jr.

 

[euphoric]

5th April 2003 at 06:03 AM Terry.Trent said this in Post #139

First of all-i know this topic is 3.25 months old.

OK-this angers me. I have been reading this thread for 1 and a half hours. it is now 1:00 in the morning, and i have found that adam and tacoman can't back up what they are saying. i know that i couldn't, seeing as how i am personally just learning all this stuff myself. I am a Christian, and i'm not afraid to admit it. The atheists in this forum have probably heard this many, many times before, but Christianity is based on faith. We do not have to provide any proof-whatsoever. We beleive that Jesus died for us and that God can't lie. So what is said in the bible, whether it is myth-like or not, is true.

Personally, what other people believe about scientific concepts makes no difference to me.  If you want accept a literal Genesis on faith without any evidence, more power to you.  That being said, if you are going to admit that it isn't based on evidence, don't even think about demanding equal time in a science class.  Beyond that, knock yourself out.

-brett