Atheist challenge #2

[Kung Food Fighting]

21st December 2002 at 11:02 AM tacoman528 said this in Post #44

considering that no one is talking to me, I will now show you why I think there was a flood.

experiment:
take a glass jar, fill it halfway with dirt, then fill it with water. You will get mud, put the jar onto a table and let it sit for a few minutes. What do you see? What does it kinda look like? It looks like the layers of rock that make up the crust of the earth. The evolutionary scientists say that each layer is a million years older than the layer on top. That's not necessarily true. With water covering the whole earth, the tides and currents are not blocked by land so they just...flow. causing the dirt at the bottom to get mixed up. Which would cause the same effect as the jar with water. You get layers. Not necessarily older and younger, just heavier and lighter.

Just as you said, the layers would arrange themselves from heavier to lighter. So if this is what went on with the flood, then why are there heavy layers on top of lighter ones in the geological strata? The fact that we do not see the real geological coloum arranged from heavier to lighter is a major strike against a global flood.

There are other anamolies in the strata that go against what one would expect from a global flood. For example in some layers there are fossilized animal foot prints. Did animals walk on the bottom of the ocean? Another exampl is that in the strata there are fine layers of salts that are caused by a large body of water evaporating and leaving a percipitate. How would these layers be formed if they were under water at the time?

They have found trees standing through many of these rock layers. If the evolutionary scientist was right, these trees would have to have lasted for millions of years without rotting. It takes a heck of a lot less time for trees to rot than that. And how could the trees have lived millions of years. Even if there were trees that could do that, the continuous pileup of sediment would cover their trunk and kill them. Also, I dont think that a tree could grow through solid rock very far, I've seen concrete broken by trees, but these trees (that are fossilized by the way) are going through many dozens of feet of rock. They would not live. If you need proof of this, hovind has pictures on his website at www-drdino-com. If you don't want to go there, you're just shunning the truth. I don't want to get off subject here so I will continue:

What Mr. Hovind failed to tell you is that sometimes there are other fossil trees that grew above these trees. If they were under water when they were covered, then how could there be other trees that grew above them? These are not entire trees either. The average hieght is usually about two meters, with the top having rotted away (another strike against a quick covering). There are several known methods that could quickly cover that much of the tree without taking millions  (or even thousands) of years.

They say that the older things are found in the lower rock layers. The evolutionary scientist would say that this disproves the flood. Not necessarily, the clams that they said evolved first, were already on the bottom when the flood started, unlike birds and humans, who could climb up rocks until they got stuck. The clams, therefore, would be lower than human and bird bones. Clams are also denser then birds or humans.

Have you ever seen flood disaters on the news? If what you say was true, then everyone would be able to get to higher ground in time. Yet people sare still caught in floods. Yet you expect people to have time to get to higher ground in a flood that was thousands of times worse then any flood in history? Don't you think at least one human would be caught unprepared in the bottom layers? Yet there are absolutely zero. Does this make sense?

About all the many arthropod species that had to have survived the flood.
Most of them probably died, but keep in mind that insects can live many months longer than chordates (animals with a backbone) can. All the dead trees and animals that float to the top would probably be sufficient for these insects. These boyant objects would even double as a boat. I don't think that Noah took all the insect onto the ark.

Woah there. Insects can live months longer then chordates? Did you know the life of the common housefly is measured in weeks? Many insects have lifespans much shorter then the one year. This means that they not only have to survive, they have to find mates and lay eggs as well. They have to do this while the worste rain strom ever is beating down on them. Just curious, but have you ever seen a moth try to fly with wet wings?

About elephants and rhino's and possibly even dinosaurs, Noah would probably take babies. They eat less, sleep more, and they don't take up as much space as their adult counterparts. And about how they would grow up. Noah was only on the ark for 5 months, not long enough for an elephant to reach full size.

And what about babies that require parental supervision in order to survive? Things like lions need to be taught by thier mother's how to hunt. Also things like elephants take years to reach maturity and would be easy prey for predators without the protection of thier parents. The same goes for many other large herbavors.

Thats enough for now, its late and I have a hard time typing in this forum because it lags like crazy for me.

 

[Arikay]

Dont forget the Two blue whales that Noah needed to take on the ark. The tank for which would take up practically 1/5th of the entire ark.

 

[Terry.Trent]

When i was taking a science class, i wasn't saved, so it didn't really matter to me.  but now i'm not taking a science class, so i don't have to argue with the teacher.  I doubt that the state would allow 'equal time' in a science class anyways.  Right now we are having trouble with bricks-strange isn't it. go here to get part of that story:

http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=5&newsid=6858

there are a lot more stories, so if you want to see them, just goto google and type 'potomac falls bricks'  almost all the links on the first page will take you to a story about them.

5th April 2003 at 01:12 AM euphoric said this in Post #140


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

 

[euphoric]

5th April 2003 at 04:51 PM Terry.Trent said this in Post #143

When i was taking a science class, i wasn't saved, so it didn't really matter to me.  but now i'm not taking a science class, so i don't have to argue with the teacher.  I doubt that the state would allow 'equal time' in a science class anyways.  Right now we are having trouble with bricks-strange isn't it. go here to get part of that story:

http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=5&newsid=6858

there are a lot more stories, so if you want to see them, just goto google and type 'potomac falls bricks'  almost all the links on the first page will take you to a story about them.

I've heard about the brick issue, and to clarify I wasn't talking about demanding equal time in a science class you were actually present in.  I was referring to the efforts of some creationists to persuade school boards to give them equal time.

-brett

 

[lucaspa]

5th April 2003 at 11:51 AM Terry.Trent said this in Post #143

When i was taking a science class, i wasn't saved, so it didn't really matter to me.  but now i'm not taking a science class, so i don't have to argue with the teacher.  I doubt that the state would allow 'equal time' in a science class anyways. 

Creationism is a falsified theory.  You can't honestly teach it as a valid theory in a science class. 

Right now we are having trouble with bricks-strange isn't it. go here to get part of that story:

http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=5&newsid=6858

This is a separation of church and state issue.  It has nothing to do with the evolution vs creationism discussion.

The parents would have to argue that the bricks could have the religious symbol of any religion the student held. The problem seems to have arisen because only the conservative Christians decided to have a symbol.  That makes it look like support of a single religion.

But I am wondering if the parents would be as accepting of a student that had Islam's Crescent or Hindu's Vishnu or a Buddha on the bricks.

 

[Terry.Trent]

i aplogize for my misunderstanding of what you said.

 

5th April 2003 at 01:52 PM euphoric said this in Post #144



I've heard about the brick issue, and to clarify I wasn't talking about demanding equal time in a science class you were actually present in.  I was referring to the efforts of some creationists to persuade school boards to give them equal time.

-brett

 

[Terry.Trent]

he parents wouldn't have chosen that symbol if the school hadn't offered it.  The school offered 2 other religious symbols as well.  personally, i think the school could have avoided the problem all together if they hadn't offered any symbols at all.  The school didn't tell the parents 'find your own symbol'.  they gave them a list to choose from.

and as for creationism being a falsified theory-its not.  there is proof for it and against it.  there is also proof for and against the big bang theory, but its not falsified, is it?

5th April 2003 at 01:53 PM lucaspa said this in Post #145

5th April 2003 at 11:51 AM Terry.Trent said this in Post #143

When i was taking a science class, i wasn't saved, so it didn't really matter to me.  but now i'm not taking a science class, so i don't have to argue with the teacher.  I doubt that the state would allow 'equal time' in a science class anyways. 

Creationism is a falsified theory.  You can't honestly teach it as a valid theory in a science class. 

Right now we are having trouble with bricks-strange isn't it. go here to get part of that story:

http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=5&newsid=6858

This is a separation of church and state issue.  It has nothing to do with the evolution vs creationism discussion.

The parents would have to argue that the bricks could have the religious symbol of any religion the student held. The problem seems to have arisen because only the conservative Christians decided to have a symbol.  That makes it look like support of a single religion.

But I am wondering if the parents would be as accepting of a student that had Islam's Crescent or Hindu's Vishnu or a Buddha on the bricks.

 

[Arikay]

Yeah, the school should have allowed parents to give their own symbol. Or they should have gone to the local library, grabed a book on the religions of the world (I have a rather large one that does a good job at covering most of the major religions) and taken the symbols out of it.

The problem is, I have yet to see the non falsified evidence for creationism, everyone says that there is some, but no one has posted it.
I also dont believe there is evidence that falsifies the Big Bang or else scientists would have changed the theory. They look for it all the time though.

5th April 2003 at 11:06 AM Terry.Trent said this in Post #147

he parents wouldn't have chosen that symbol if the school hadn't offered it.  The school offered 2 other religious symbols as well.  personally, i think the school could have avoided the problem all together if they hadn't offered any symbols at all.  The school didn't tell the parents 'find your own symbol'.  they gave them a list to choose from.

and as for creationism being a falsified theory-its not.  there is proof for it and against it.  there is also proof for and against the big bang theory, but its not falsified, is it?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

5th April 2003 at 02:06 PM Terry.Trent said this in Post #147


and as for creationism being a falsified theory-its not.  there is proof for it and against it.  there is also proof for and against the big bang theory, but its not falsified, is it?

Yes, creationism is a falsified theory, and the majority of Christians realize that.

Your argument is contradictory however because instead of "proof" you mean "evidence". There is indeed proof that creationism is false, but in that case it cannot be proven true simultaneously. The Big Bang theory is an explanation of evidence.

 

[Terry.Trent]

under the light of the fact that what you two have said-i can only say that you may be right.  i still take the bible literally, and still beleive in Creationism, for the same reason you two desipise-Goddidit. 

and the big bang theory-i still take that as it is-a theory.  they have not found enough evidence or proof to call it the 'Big Bang'  instead of 'Big Bang Theory'.  But still, thats my choice. 

unlike the previous two that you debated with (adam and tacoman), i don't think i have any, or enough, evidence to convince you otherwise.  this is an uphill battle, with rocks rolling down towards me.  I can only pray that God will show himself to you, and give you the answers you are trying to find.

 

[Terry.Trent]

I suppose i agree with you that the school could have offered more symbols-but i don't think it would have made a difference.  The person that saw the Cross was offended by that-and that alone.  I don't think that any other symbols would have changed the outcome.  I unfortunately have a very biased opinion, so its really futile to argue with me about this-my friends parents are taking part in the lawsuit, so i am supporting them to the fullest.

5th April 2003 at 04:21 PM Arikay said this in Post #148

Yeah, the school should have allowed parents to give their own symbol. Or they should have gone to the local library, grabed a book on the religions of the world (I have a rather large one that does a good job at covering most of the major religions) and taken the symbols out of it.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

5th April 2003 at 09:45 PM Terry.Trent said this in Post #150

under the light of the fact that what you two have said-i can only say that you may be right.  i still take the bible literally, and still beleive in Creationism, for the same reason you two desipise-Goddidit. 

It has nothing to do with God. The point is that creationism is not tenable given the evidence.

It also depends on how literally you take the Bible. If you take it to the point of saying the Earth is 6,000 years old and the world was completely flooded, those concepts are also false given the evidence.

and the big bang theory-i still take that as it is-a theory.  they have not found enough evidence or proof to call it the 'Big Bang'  instead of 'Big Bang Theory'.  But still, thats my choice. 

A scientific theory is the pinnacle of the scientific method. The Big Bang Theory will never move beyond being called a "theory" in the same way the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons are part of quantum theory.

A scientific theory is defined differently from the colloquial definition of the word "theory".

 

[Arikay]

I agree, the school supplying any sort of symbols let alone only three, probably wasnt the best of ideas.

5th April 2003 at 06:49 PM Terry.Trent said this in Post #151

I suppose i agree with you that the school could have offered more symbols-but i don't think it would have made a difference.  The person that saw the Cross was offended by that-and that alone.  I don't think that any other symbols would have changed the outcome.  I unfortunately have a very biased opinion, so its really futile to argue with me about this-my friends parents are taking part in the lawsuit, so i am supporting them to the fullest.

 

[Terry.Trent]

did i mention this was an uphill battle?  I am not here to debate-for the facts i stated earlier.  i do not know enough to debate with you.  and yes, i take the bible so litterally that if the bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old, then i believe that.  If the bible says the world was completly flooded, i believe that.

5th April 2003 at 09:57 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #152



It has nothing to do with God. The point is that creationism is not tenable given the evidence.

It also depends on how literally you take the Bible. If you take it to the point of saying the Earth is 6,000 years old and the world was completely flooded, those concepts are also false given the evidence.



A scientific theory is the pinnacle of the scientific method. The Big Bang Theory will never move beyond being called a "theory" in the same way the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons are part of quantum theory.

A scientific theory is defined differently from the colloquial definition of the word "theory".

 

[Arikay]

What if the bible says the world is flat?

 

[Follower of Christ]

5th April 2003 at 10:50 PM Terry.Trent said this in Post #154

did i mention this was an uphill battle?  I am not here to debate-for the facts i stated earlier.  i do not know enough to debate with you.  and yes, i take the bible so litterally that if the bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old, then i believe that.  If the bible says the world was completly flooded, i believe that.

Thank God for the few left out there that believe Him regardless of everything else.

I dont see much of that even in the chuch.

 

[Follower of Christ]

5th April 2003 at 11:01 PM Arikay said this in Post #155

What if the bible says the world is flat?

Have you ever laid out a yardstick on the ground?

looks flat to me.....

 

[Terry.Trent]

Then my perception of the world is wrong.

5th April 2003 at 11:01 PM Arikay said this in Post #155

What if the bible says the world is flat?

 

[Arikay]

So you believe the earth is flat? (as the bible referes to the earth as being circular (as in 2d circle, not sphere) and also having 4 corners).

 

[Terry.Trent]

doesn't it have 4 corners?  Where East meets West/West meets East on the Equator-thats two and the North and Sout Poles.  That sounds like 4 corners to me.  If you look on a map, isn't it flat? 

5th April 2003 at 11:25 PM Arikay said this in Post #159

So you believe the earth is flat? (as the bible referes to the earth as being circular (as in 2d circle, not sphere) and also having 4 corners).