Atheist challenge #2

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by tacoman528
To mechanical,
Please see Dr. Hovinds explanation for radiometric dating at www-drdino-com.

Please see a geochemistry textbook for an explanation for radiometric dating, a concept you clearly don't understand. Would I be better to trust a textbook written by geochemists with doctorates from accreditied institutions or someone who isn't even a scientist with phony Ph.D? I'll go with the geochemists.

Do you have any words of your own to say or are you going to keep linking to that website which has been continually refuted? If you want to discuss radiometric dating, that's fine, but I am not going to play the "link" game.

You say that the layer would either be really mixed up, or one big layer all around the earth. Keep in mind that though the water during the flood was moving, it wasn't moving terribly fast, or else Noah wouldn't have survived. Near the beginning of the flood, Some layers would be sorted out. Then as the water got higher, more and more layer were added on, but not all of the dirt was mixed.

None of this explains anything. It is all fluff. If you are not going to address the points I raised, then why debate? Or are you here just to give "Dr" Hovind some publicity because you seem to have no words of your own on these subjects?

And when I said that geologists assume that each layer is a million years older than the one before, I was aware that wasn't the total truth, I was really just making a point.

There are apparently many concepts in geology of which you don't understand the truth.

That the evolutionary explanation is absurd (I'm sorry to say)

The biological theory of evolution is irrelavent in this case. We're talking about geology. And many of these topics and explanations I have discussed were in effect before the biological theory of evolution was an established scientific theory.

You're going to have to do better than a bunch of hand waving and calling everything "evolutionary" and automatically considering it wrong. There are basic geologic principles you are ignoring.

I showed how you did not accurately represent geological principles by a long shot. I showed how a global flood scenario is not consistent with the data. Your ignoring it and posting a well-refuted link is not helping your case.

And what about the coal layers that are separated by supposedly thousands of years of rock, meet only a few feet down the line. That sounds like a flaw to me.

Stating that something exists and providing evidence are two different things.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by tacoman528

There is no such thing as the geologic column, Charles Lyell made it up two-hundred years ago,

Of course it exists otherwise we would not see layered sedimentary rock. The problem is that you think the geologic column is considerably simpler than it really is. You won't find a geologic column representative of the world. This occurs for many perfectly rational reasons. One is that a sedimentary layer being deposited in Southwest Asia will likely be of a different composition and texture than a sedimentary layer being deposited simultaneously in the United States. Furthermore, faulting, and even mountain building in Southwest Asia would cause these sedimentary layers to fold and fracture. Also, since the geologic column is so old it is prone to weathering and erosion over time. These factors complicate things. Geology is not as simple as you make it out to be.

the only place you will find a complete and accurate geologic column is in the textbook.

This proves that you have never cracked open a geology textbook.

I don't really want to find all my sources from some guy (who was extremely biased by the way) who was a lawyer who lived 200 years ago.

I have not read any evidence that Lyell was "extremely biased". He moved on from law to be a scientist and observer of geology. The field was just emerging at the time--he is considered one of the grandfathers of the geological sciences.

Furthermore, you claim that you don't want to find your answers from someone who is extremely biased, yet you get ALL your answers from someone who is indeed extremely biased. Hovind is not a scientist. He is someone extremely biased and dedicated to twisting facts to fit his religion and ignoring anything that doesn't fit. What a double standard.

I'd rather agree with God on this.

Last time I checked, God made no contribution to the geological sciences.

You base your evidence on the geologic column which does not exist.

You have no idea what you're talking about considering you don't even know what it is exactly that geologists call the "geologic column". How can you attempt to refute something about which you have no education?

Like I said earlier, the geologic column is made up using circular reasoning. I know its like a bible to you, and I'm sorry to talk about it this way, but its true.

No, it's not true that the geologic column is "made up using circular reasoning". The geologic column is observed and interpreted using hard data none of which you have been able to refute, much less talk about directly. I suggest you consider addressing points directly instead of ignoring them.

 

[Corey]

On a geology note, I'd like a Flood-believer to explain the non-uniform distribution of iridium at the K-T Boundary. The answer should include knowledge of the scientific hypothesis about what formed and point-by-point refutation of that hypothesis.

I'll be waiting tacoman and adam.

 

[tacoman528]

Originally posted by notto
I base my evidence on what we find in the ground in the layers you say are caused by sorting during the worldwide flood.

How can you explain fossilized
- raindrop marks
- footprints
- worm tracks
- ant hills
- termite mounds
- fossilized rooted plants
- salt formations

all, inbetween the layers that were caused by sorting. This evidence falsifies the idea that these layers were layed down by sorting at the same time. Many of these need to be done in dry soil. The proof is there inside the ground. We dig it up. Regardless of the "Geologic" column, it is there.

By the way, you might want to read this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

"This article is a detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota. I do this not to disprove the Bible but to encourage Christians who are in the area of apologetics to do a better job of getting the facts straight."

And as for your comment on what I accept as the bible, I would appreciate it if you would keep comments about my faith to yourself. I have not insulted your faith or beliefs, I have simply presented evidence and asked you questions to show you where you (and your sources) are misrepresenting scientific data, evidence, and theories.

I am a Christian and like many other Christians, my faith does not hinge on this debate. Show me evidence that will overthrow evolution and I will stop accepting it tommorrow. I have yet been presented with this evidence.

Many Christians accept evolution.

 

First of all, I would like to say that you being a christian comes as a great relief to me (that is, if you really are) one less guy that Jesus has to save. But what I don't understand is how God says that he created the earth in six days, there was a worldwide flood, and that God does not lie, and even though he's very clear about all that, you don't think its true. And if there wasn't a flood, I would like to hear your explanation for how a raindrop, anthill, termite mound, worm track or salt formation got fossilized.

 

[tacoman528]

Originally posted by No gods
Tacoman, I asked you this in the other thread, but I'll ask again here. Since you take such stock in what "Dr" Hovind preaches, would you consider trying to get a college degree from the same college that "Dr" Hovind received his? Here's a shot of the university listed on his "PHD" in education.

http://www.geocities.com/odonate/patriot.htm

And here is some info on the university:

Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill

 

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.

 

[Jerry Smith]

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.

Those are your criteria? Well, here's another good source for your upcoming debates. Their arguments are scientific sounding, reasonable sounding, and all the ones I've seen go along with what the Bible says. Plus, they probably don't have real degrees either!...

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

 

[LadyShea]

Don't you see that Hovinds education is directly relevant to his credibility in regards to his "scientific" claims? Also, the degree he bought was not even in a scientific field! Would you let a high school graduate with no medical training diagnose a disease and prescribe treatment?

 

And if you want proof, simply email Hovind and ask him where he got his degree and what field it is in.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by tacoman528
his arguments are scientific, reasonable, and all the ones I've seen go along with what the Bible says.

Hovind's arguments are not scientific. They may sound scientific, but if you actually look at what Hovind is saying, his arguments fall apart quite easily. The reason they sound good is because of Hovind's presentation skills (primarily because he throws out "facts" so quickly, most people don't even have a chance to stop and scrutinize them).

 

[tacoman528]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
If you want to try to convince me (and others on this forum) then bring something to table like evidence, research, anything. Blind assertations don't make for compelling arguments.

I was just saying that I have heard different calculations than the ones that you just used. The day that you measure the distance form the sun, measure the rate of movement, do the advanced calculus and trigonometry, and it all concurs with what you used originally as your "evidence", then I will consider revising my beliefs

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
But you said, "Even if the earth were 1 kilometer closer, it would eventually become too hot for life". Do you have something to back up this claim, or were you just blowing smoke?
[/B]

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
The key there is "unless it was disturbed". Over a long period of time, a lot can happen to disturb things in the Earth, like seismic activity, erosion (both wind and water), chemical reactions, other living organisms, etc. Fossilization is a rare process that requires specific conditions for it to occur. It doesn't just happen to all dead things.
[/B]

Have you seen the chaos in some of these fossil graveyards? There are bones of some animals that are found miles away. There are backbones with no ribs attached to them. Rarely is a skeleton found intact. Erosion, siesmic activity, and chemical reactions do not account for this. And the only reason that fossils are so "rare" is because half of the fossils they find go against the theory of Evolution so they don't even bother to document them because, "there's no possible way that evolution could be wrong...right?"

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I'm not going to hunt for source material to back up your argument. That's your job, not mine. If you can't be bothered, then I'll just assume that you have nothing on which you base your claims. (And just for the record, I've watched all of Hovind's videos and read a lot of creationist literature, including numerous articles from places like AIG and ICR. However, when compared to scientific counter-arguments, I put stock in what science says.) [/B]

You're the one who wants to avoid the answers, not me.

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Why would I assume the Earth wasn't? There's plenty of evidence *for* an old Earth. All of the "evidence" I've seen promoting a young Earth are usually just attempts to discredit the evidence for an old Earth, or are based on flawed methodology (and they always come from the point of religious bias, rather than objective science). [/B]

If you want unbiased evidence, read the book, "Darwin's Black Box" by a man who happens to be an athiest.

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff

Oh, and before you go off on a tangent about the "problems" with radiometric dating, please read this page: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. It details how radiometric dating works, why it works, and even lists common misconceptions. [/B]

 

I guess its too late to prevent you from going of on one of your tangent consisting of "blown off smoke". See Dr. Hovind's explanation at the previous address only back a few pages under the issue of "RadioCarbon Dating"

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by tacoman528
 
I was just saying that I have heard different calculations than the ones that you just used.

So provide them, then.

The day that you measure the distance form the sun, measure the rate of movement, do the advanced calculus and trigonometry, and it all concurs with what you used originally as your "evidence", then I will consider revising my beliefs

I'm confused. You're saying I have to personally go out and perform the experiment, and only then will you accept it? I hope you realize what a ridiculous stance that is.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=ar...&specific=2

I didn't see anything on there that supports your claim that "Even if the earth were 1 kilometer closer, it would eventually become too hot for life".

Have you seen the chaos in some of these fossil graveyards? There are bones of some animals that are found miles away. There are backbones with no ribs attached to them. Rarely is a skeleton found intact. Erosion, siesmic activity, and chemical reactions do not account for this. And the only reason that fossils are so "rare" is because half of the fossils they find go against the theory of Evolution so they don't even bother to document them because, "there's no possible way that evolution could be wrong...right?"

I really don't know where you are going with this. First of all, I don't know what fossil graveyards you are referring to and therefore, what conditions may have been present to cause their current arrangement. If you have a specific example, then present it.

As for your other point, "half of the fossils they find go against the theory of Evolution", can you actually support this claim? Or is this just another baseless statement?

You're the one who wants to avoid the answers, not me.

If I completely refused to read creationist literature, then you'd be right. But I don't refuse to read creationist literature. Rather, I refuse to spend time pouring over creationist literature looking for material you are too lazy to find yourself. Like I said, it's your job to find material to support your argument.

If you want unbiased evidence, read the book, "Darwin's Black Box" by a man who happens to be an athiest.

I haven't read it yet, but I wouldn't mind (even though I'm familiar with Behe's "irreducible complexity" arguments). For the record, though, Behe is a Catholic. (Out of curiosity, have you read that book?)

I guess its too late to prevent you from going of on one of your tangent consisting of "blown off smoke". See Dr. Hovind's explanation at the previous address only back a few pages under the issue of "RadioCarbon Dating"

Why are you bringing up carbon dating? The source I referenced with evidence for a multi-billion year old Earth had nothing to do with carbon dating.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff


"I guess its too late to prevent <I>you </I>from going of on one of <I>your </I>tangent consisting of "blown off smoke". See Dr. Hovind's explanation at the previous address only back a few pages under the issue of "RadioCarbon Dating"

Why are you bringing up carbon dating? The source I referenced with evidence for a multi-billion year old Earth had nothing to do with carbon dating.

Not to mention,&nbsp;why bring up "Dr." Hovind? That should raise a red flag right there.

At least have the respect to call him Mr. Hovind, or, if you consider him a friend, Kent Hovind. Save the "Doctor" titles for people who's earned them in something.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Not to mention,&nbsp;why bring up "Dr." Hovind? That should raise a red flag right there.

I'm still waiting for the day I actually see someone try to vigorously defend Hovind without simply parroting Hovind's claim and then hand-waving away any counterpoints.

Of course, I don't think it's any big surprise that anyone who actually understands the sciences involved (enough to be able to make a decent debate out of it) doesn't use Hovind as a source to begin with.

 

[Doubting Thomas II]

I'd settle for just one Hovind-bot, just once, understanding the difference between radiocarbon dating and the techniques that are actually used to date the Earth. Their inability (or refusal) to do so is extremely tedious.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas II
I'd settle for just one Hovind-bot, just once, understanding the difference between radiocarbon dating and the techniques that are actually used to date the Earth. Their inability (or refusal) to do so is extremely tedious.

That's why I went ahead and linked to that article on radiometric dating. It's much better to debate something if you at least appear to know what you are talking about. But he obviously ignored it, because he brought up carbon dating for something that has no relevance to carbon dating whatsoever.

It's too bad some people seem to think arguing from a position of ignorance is actually helping their argument.

 

[adam332]

Sorry it's been a couple of days folks, I work at Wal-Mart and they've been known to be a little busy....

So let's get back on track.... Notto's first in line, so....

Notto,

you siad

"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?"

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&nbsp;the well preserved state that you described it in.

___________

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

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.

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

What is to be said is&nbsp;simply according to where we stand.

And, I was an atheist for thirty yrs raised&nbsp;by atheists, science/evolution was all I had ever considered. So, I know how&nbsp;much of a "goofy cult" I appear to you. I'm fine with that and it&nbsp;serves me right for carrying on about them before I became a believer.

&nbsp;

 

[adam332]

MSBS,

you said;

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

Why would it? There were four women("eves") aboard the ark(Gen. 7:13), not one.

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).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp


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?

Again, this is their system, of which many&nbsp;bear&nbsp;hugely different results. And, not "all" animals had to be ancestor of a single pair at the flood. There were seven(Gen. 7:2) of all the clean animals,&nbsp;found in Lev. 11. There may have been many kinds of clean animals&nbsp;that did not survive to the time that these post flood unclean laws were&nbsp;given. That being&nbsp;possible, there also may have been many more kinds of clean animals from which differentiation could occur. Thus again thowing there dating off.

 

[adam332]

Do we really wanna' wade through anymore pages about hovind? I don't. Short and concise I thought was the premise......

 

[adam332]

Nathan,

ever notice how your little smiley guy has someones leather jock on&nbsp;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.

 

[euphoric]

How does this link...

Originally posted by adam332
MSBS,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp

Answer this question?

Originally posted by&nbsp;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).

Your reference didn't address the fact that if the Flood Story is true, all human beings would be traced back to a single common male ancestor who lived around 4500 years ago.

Originally posted by&nbsp;adam332
Again, this is their system, of which many&nbsp;bear&nbsp;hugely different results. And, not "all" animals had to be ancestor of a single pair at the flood. There were seven(Gen. 7:2) of all the clean animals,&nbsp;found in Lev. 11. There may have been many kinds of clean animals&nbsp;that did not survive to the time that these post flood unclean laws were&nbsp;given. That being&nbsp;possible, there also may have been many more kinds of clean animals from which differentiation could occur. Thus again thowing there dating off.

But there would still be kinds which Noah only took two of.&nbsp; Would we expect to find a genetic bottleneck around 4500 years ago in those species?&nbsp; If not, why not?

-brett

 

[lithium.]

Hmmm... Last I read the so called "Eve" was about 150,000 years ago (well I believe that is th right year, but it's close).

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/feature/feature.html