Atheist challenge #2

[Corey]

Hye, Pete, quick question for you...is your avatar DEATHOFRATS?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by adam332

We have Biblical reason to believe that before the fall there was no death yet there were plenty of animals.

Biblical evidence is not scientific evidence. It is mere speculation that is not substantiated. The rest of the paragraph rests on the assumption that the Bible is not only essentially true, but 100% true.

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.

This does not account for the dietary requirements of some animals. I seriously doubt that some animals could subsist on a diet that would probably have little protein at all.

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.

Again, merely assumption.

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.

So, really, you admit that you have zero scientific evidence and that, in reality, this situation is not "scientifically feasible". This is a situaion that's supernaturally feasible (which essentially means anything goes).

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.

That's the fatal flaw in your argument which will sway nearly no one who opposes your conclusion about the flood.

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.

Since the supernatural is not within the realm of science there is no grounds to "scientifically refute" or accept your claims.

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.

The supernatural explains itself. Right...

That's basically your argument. You said that it was "scientifically feasible" yet apparently it is not.

Nor does anything you have mentioned negate all of the falsified evidence for the global flood and subsequently zero geologic evidence fot this global flood.

If there was a global flood, we should be able to make predictions about what types of evidence we would find. None of those pridictions have been supported when looking at all of the evidence.

 

[adam332]

mechanical bliss,
do you ever take time to read?

I never said any comments I make will be purely scientific nor did I limit this thread to such, read the links there are scientific answers for many things there.
The bottom line is science has NO proof just their findings from which they proceed to come up with logical theories, again based on their methods.

This is absolutely no different from Creationists. We have a foundation of from which we consider truth, and we too design logical theories on findings. Your arguments rely on themselves to prove themselves as mine do. So you can remove yourself if you don't care to discuss this with the same openness that I am willing to share. This discussion is not mandatory, and I will try my best to produce items of scientific nature when and where possible. But as stated and is obvious science nor the Bible gives us every answer for every question, but both rely on their own standards for their own theories. I'm willing to meet science in the middle, but I see that your not. Bye....

I was hoping for some substance with a little more of maturity than tacokid has shown, if you are younger than he is then you have an excuse, if not read before you write. Your two for two making the evolution side show that they are closed minded and don't pay attention.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Corey
Hye, Pete, quick question for you...is your avatar DEATHOFRATS?

No, it's the monkey (masquerading as "death, stealer of pie") from Weebl and Bob.

 

[seebs]

Science has an accepted methodology for determining patterns from observations. This methodology is a good and useful one. I prefer to build my view of the physical world using it, since it seems to work.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by adam332
mechanical bliss,
do you ever take time to read?

Apparently I did, when I read:

...about Noah's ark not being a scientifically feasible situation.

Your objective was to refute the claim of "Noah's ark not being a scientifically feasible situation". This seems to me to imply that you would be presenting an argument showing how Noah's ark could be a scientifically feasible situation. To show that it's a scientifically feasible situation, you need to present scientific evidence.

I clearly did pay attention, so get off that high horse.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by adam332
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?

My understanding from talking to Biblical literalists was that carnivorous behavior began after the Fall. So, the assumption is that carnivores were on board the Ark.

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.

So, now you're assuming that animals were either herbivores or omnivores, and later became "pure" carnivores. However, to prove this point you'd have to show (as a general rule) that all the precursors of our current carnivores, were, in fact omnivorous. Those that weren't would have died out. You'd also have to show the mechanism by which they went from being omnivorous to pure carnivore. Without any real evidence, this is nothing more than speculation.

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.

And this points to what I said earlier. Divine intervention. Which makes me wonder why I should believe the Biblical version of history over other religious beliefs, or for that matter, what the historical evidence actually tells us.

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.

The problem is, there are people out there who would like to see Genesis taught as fact in a science classroom. The minute you propose the supernatural, it ceases being science.

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

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

I glanced through those, but I don't see anything relevant to this specific line of discussion (predators surviving post-flood).

edited for clarity

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by adam332
This is absolutely no different from Creationists.

Assuming we're talking YEC here, this is wrong. The reason scientists come up with things like the theory of evolution, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, etc, is because of the evidence. People went out, looked at the Earth and how things in the natural world behaved, and came to those conclusions.

YEC organizations seek to promote the idea of a young Earth, with spontaneous appearence of major life forms, a 4000 year old flood, etc, in spite of the evidence. Hence, most of the YEC literature I've read argues against the position of 'modern' biological and geological findings (for example, trying to prove radiometric dating is all one big ball of hooey).

So, I'm sorry, but these two positions are fundamentally different.

 

[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.....

 

[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.

 

[Humanista]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.....

 

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]

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]

To Mechanical,

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