A few questions for the hardcore creationists

I can't beleive that you started a thread, then, after someone worked out an answer to your questions, you responded with....nothing. Are you planning on making a sensible response to WhiteChapel's post??

Originally posted by Jugg

There's no room in society for religious extremists.

Hence the violence; they're creating room!

It's disgusting, they hate for something they believe in (eternal love?). But in my eyes, there is no right or wrong, only winners and losers. No matter how right a religion thinks it is, and how much in power they are, they'll die off, and another will be born. If we happen to live near them, sucks for us. They'll always be here.

on topic:
someone answer the damn questions! haha

Originally posted by Nygdan
I can't beleive that you started a thread, then, after someone worked out an answer to your questions, you responded with....nothing. Are you planning on making a sensible response to WhiteChapel's post??

No one has answered my questions yet!?

Not white chapel not any one else.

I'm not even going to bother, this guy is obviously trolling and just looking for a fight. It's the same old boring refrain: "people that believe in God are stupid and I'm the enlightened one, I can't believe these people are so blind and woah is me I have to live near them." The whole episode is one big YYYAAAAWWWNNNNN....aren't we on to a new "intolerance of the week" episode? Let's see, we've gone through blacks, women, gays, and the believers. I think we are sort of on to immigrants but some people are hanging on to the anti-faith banner.

Originally posted by White Chapel
I'm not even going to bother, this guy is obviously trolling and just looking for a fight. It's the same old boring refrain: "people that believe in God are stupid and I'm the enlightened one, I can't believe these people are so blind and woah is me I have to live near them." The whole episode is one big YYYAAAAWWWNNNNN....aren't we on to a new "intolerance of the week" episode? Let's see, we've gone through blacks, women, gays, and the believers. I think we are sort of on to immigrants but some people are hanging on to the anti-faith banner.

As i already said... Im not against religion, people can believe all they want and i wont call 'em stupid.

Neither am i looking for a fight.

I'll take a stab at this, even though I don't think I fall under the category of 'hard-core creationist' though based on the thread thus far, I doubt it will fruitful.

Originally posted by Jugg
Okay, so im going to drop af few questions here.
I will only accept answers that you can back up with a valid source, a scientific source, from at NON-BIAS website, book or the like.

Well, here's your first problem right here, there's no such thing as an unbiased source. Anyway....

1. First of all, are people like Kent Hovind reliable sources?

Not for scientific analysis and interpretation.

2. Are ALL dating methods faulty?

Certainly not. Nothing flawed about recording a date on something and referring back to it. Whether or not radiometric techniques and other inferences about the past are reliable or entirely correct is now, and will forever be debatable.

3. Did men and dino's co-exist?

Not according to the majority of scientific evidence.

4. How was Noah able to collect all animals, were the earth one big land mass?

No Comment.

5. Is Irreducible complexity really a valid argument? Is there really anything that is Irreducible complexity?

Is IC a valid argument for what? Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of things that are IC, both in biology and outside of it. Whether or not this evidence against abiogenesis is debatable.

5 simple questions. And if you answer using a bias'ed source i must assume you are unable to read.

Interesting assumption. Should we assume the same about you given the mulitple errors contained in your OP, that I conveniently bolded for you. If illiteracy isn't a valid assumption, what is... perhaps an education that's not gone beyond the fifth grade. Please let us know.

To aswer me these 5 questions you creationists must know, you need to look it up in scientific sources, do this for me, and will give you a BIIG hug

Hmmm... Given the nature of the reward... perhaps I wish I didn't respond to this post.

This entire last quote should have been bolded though... "To aswer [sic] me these 5 questions..." doesn't follow any sentence structure I was ever taught. The entire quote exists as one big run-on sentence, and the final phrase is missing a subject.

Now I'm confused... who is it that can't read, you or the 'hard-core creationists?'

1. First of all, are people like Kent Hovind reliable sources?
Well, I don't read him.

2. Are ALL dating methods faulty?
Those that are based on uniformitarian assumptions are faulty.

3. Did men and dino's co-exist?
Yes. There isn't much evidence for this, but there is the widespread presence of myths about dragons, which may be corrupted descriptions of dinos.

4. How was Noah able to collect all animals, were the earth one big land mass?

Yes.

5. Is Irreducible complexity really a valid argument? Is there really anything that is Irreducible complexity?
It has become something of a buzzword that people sometimes attach too quickly to things. However, the fact that something that appears impossible to evolve incrementally could actually be evolved using additional components that are later lost does not mean the system was necessarily formed naturally, as the mechanisms of natural evolution have demonstrated to be incapable of producing the present biosphere from whatever it supposedly originally began with.

Originally posted by BeefotronX
1. First of all, are people like Kent Hovind reliable sources?
Well, I don't read him.


2. Are ALL dating methods faulty?
Those that are based on uniformitarian assumptions are faulty.

And which are that?

3. Did men and dino's co-exist?
Yes. There isn't much evidence for this, but there is the widespread presence of myths about dragons, which may be corrupted descriptions of dinos.

You clearly answers yes, then you say there are no evidence.
..........?

4. How was Noah able to collect all animals, were the earth one big land mass?

Yes.

Read the question again. I asked HOW.

5. Is Irreducible complexity really a valid argument? Is there really anything that is Irreducible complexity?
It has become something of a buzzword that people sometimes attach too quickly to things. However, the fact that something that appears impossible to evolve incrementally could actually be evolved using additional components that are later lost does not mean the system was necessarily formed naturally, as the mechanisms of natural evolution have demonstrated to be incapable of producing the present biosphere from whatever it supposedly originally began with.

Huh? Where is that demonstrated? And what do you mean by it?

mod edit-censor circumvention



[edit on 8-7-2006 by masqua]

The 'tone' in this thread is beginning to get nasty, imho.

Please don't allow it to become a venue for personal attacks as the discussion gets heated.

Just a friendly reminder.

I'll try to tickle my brain here.

1. First of all, are people like Kent Hovind reliable sources?
-Who the... is he another talking head or something?

2. Are ALL dating methods faulty?
-No. As I understand it, quantum dating is fairly precise so long as the conditions of the object are viable for the test. It is, however, in the interests of some people to withhold or alter the dates so as to keep the illusion of confusion alive.

3. Did men and dino's co-exist?
-Possibly. The more interesting question would perhaps be "Were there humanoid dinosaurs?"

4. How was Noah able to collect all animals, were the earth one big land mass?
-He didn't. He wouldn't be able to unless he just wanted to be an idiot. Simply put, even if did manage to get a pair of every living creature on earth, including microbial life forms, thereafter to have them being the only surviving creatures remaining after such a cataclysmic event... it would take much longer than a few millenia for them to reproduce to the numbers they enjoy (or don't if they're extinct) today. Even so, if they were able to reproduce in such numbers, they would not have surived simply because there were only other survivors to eat. What else were they going to eat? Soy Bacon?

5. Is Irreducible complexity really a valid argument? Is there really anything that is Irreducible complexity?
-Honestly I Have never heard of it, but I can postulate that the term means something along the lines of "Scientific Jargon that Demonstrates a Lack of Understanding by the Scientific Community of the Topic at Hand"

[edit on 7/8/2006 by AlnilamOmega]

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
I'll try to tickle my brain here.

1. First of all, are people like Kent Hovind reliable sources?
-Who the... is he another talking head or something?

He's one of the big name young-earth creationists whom claims the title "Dr" without a PhD... many YE's have problems with him also. So my answer is no.

3. Did men and dino's co-exist?
-Possibly. The more interesting question would perhaps be "Were there humanoid dinosaurs?"

What's a "humanoid dinosaur" exactly?

5. Is Irreducible complexity really a valid argument? Is there really anything that is Irreducible complexity?
-Honestly I Have never heard of it, but I can postulate that the term means something along the lines of "Scientific Jargon that Demonstrates a Lack of Understanding by the Scientific Community of the Topic at Hand"

(emphasis mine) Wow... typical. The term was coined by (PhD) Biochemist Mike Behe (terms like specified/interlocking complexity do predate Behe's IC and are similar.) I would suggest actually reading up on it before you go around 'postulating' out of ignorance, after all it is ATS's motto.

[Irreducible complexity is a characteristic of biological systems] "wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box)

"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system." (William Dembski, No Free Lunch)

Neither statement is false nor controvercial, many MANY examples can be found in biological systems/components. The inference that such 'systems' are best explained via intelligent agency is the controvercial part. Remember what Darwin said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of The Species pg. 154) Can you think of a way to falsify NDE other than IC... or finding a rabbit in the Cambrian?

Irreducible Complexity ReVisited By: Mike Gene

Molecular Machines:
Experimental Support for the Design Inference By: Mike Behe

An Introduction to
Molecular Machines and Irreducible Complexity

For the other side of the argument here's a Google search on IC at the Talk Origins archive.

Those will get you familiar with the concept... hope it helps you with your future, um 'postulations.'

(edit)BB code and bad link

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Rren]

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Rren]

I'm not sure I'd be considered "hard core" but I should have probably answered the Op post first, bad form, sorry 'bout that. For the record: I'm an old-Earth creationist; see this page for an example of an OE creation model. I'm familiar enough with YE/global flood arguments to give their position... hopefully, if I misrepresent their position, they'll step in and correct me.

Originally posted by Jugg
Okay, so im going to drop af few questions here.
I will only accept answers that you can back up with a valid source, a scientific source, from at NON-BIAS website, book or the like.

Give a good example[s] of an acceptable souce, for both sides.

1. First of all, are people like Kent Hovind reliable sources?

I'd say no. Here's his site: www.drdino.com... and TO's FAQ page on him.

The Institute for Creation Research is a good YE site imo. Here's their staff.

2. Are ALL dating methods faulty?

No, but not entirely accurate either of course. I'd say close enough, YE's would say they're WAY off. There's plenty of scientific arguments to be had here. Your question is too general to be a good stating point imo, you'll have to pick one of those examples (from the ICR search link) to discuss or restate the question. FWIW here's Hovind's page on dating.

My side, the old-Earthers, would say: Science and Scripture both support an old Earth/universe.

Use the ATS search feature; you'll find plenty of threads around here where the finer points have already been discussed at some length.

3. Did men and dino's co-exist?

I'd say no.

YE's, I believe, would point out:

- The Paluxy river tracks


- AIG's page on dinosaurs.


- Depictions of dinosaurs in Ancient rock art, eg: ("Ancient Indian rock drawings, like this one of a sauropod dinosaur from White River Canyon, Utah, show that dinosaurs coexisted with man.") Ancient dinosaur depictions

- 'Malachite Man' ("These humans appear to have been buried by the same catastrophe that buried dinosaurs in this continent spanning formation. Humans and dinosaurs must have lived at the same time!")

- Descriptions of dinosaurs in Scripture

4. How was Noah able to collect all animals, were the earth one big land mass?

See: AIG's How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

The mechanism for the flood (ie, where'd all the water come from/go to, mountains, plates, ridges, etc...) that most YE's advocate is, mechanical engineer, Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory. Dr. Brown's entire book is available for free online and accessed through that link.

Most old-Earther's believe the flood was local and the Bible [when properly translated] describes it as such.

See:

The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local (from: Godandscience.org)


and

Rapid Post-Flood Speciation: A Critique of the Young-Earth Model (from: Reasons.org)

5. Is Irreducible complexity really a valid argument? Is there really anything that is Irreducible complexity?

Yes. Yes. (see my last post)

5 simple questions. And if you answer using a bias'ed source i must assume you are unable to read.

You're clever. How's that been working for ya?

To aswer me these 5 questions you creationists must know, you need to look it up in scientific sources, do this for me, and will give you a BIIG hug

Most of the arguments on these sites have the refs. used to draw their conclusions... Do you read/understand the scientific literature wrt these topics otherwise?

Regards,
-Rren

(edit)Fixed a link and spelling.

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Rren]

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Rren]

Regarding Q4:

Noah didn't have to go out to catch all the animals. The animals came to Noah. Also for some of the animals there was not one pair of each animal but 7 pairs of each.

"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth." (Genesis 7:2-3)

"Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah." (Genesis7:8-9)

I can provide no scientific evidence for this because none exists. It is a faith.

Originally posted by Prot0n
People should have to validate their beliefs if they wish to push those beliefs as facts and force those beliefs into every aspect of our live's in whichever way's they can.

I understand that they can't answer these questions in the factual sense or through using validated scientific sources, as such don't exist. They will however turn to thier prescious bible and say SEE! It says so right here in such and such verse. Which is usually followed by five minutes of huffing and puffing with a scary beady eyed look that seems to stare right through you.

Personally, I think we should isolate them and ridicule them. FFS, atleast the adults. I understand the kids don't know any better and are more influenced by what their friends and family believe's. But god damn, the adults should atleast have a somewhat tiny ammount of common sense in them.

If it starts an argument, so be it. So what. They feel they have every right to push their beliefs upon the rest of mankind in some religous attempt to "save" us, then we to have every right to argue thier silly pagan originated beliefs. If they wish people to stop attacking thir beliefs, then they can stop trying to push their beliefs as facts. Respect works both ways. They want it, they can earn it. If we use the past 2,000 years of their history as an indicator, I'd say this will never happen.

PS : I'm far from mature. Ask anyone on ATS

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Prot0n]

I found this post amusing as it is nothing but a rant, and a forceful one at that, about how Christians are ignorant, rant and force their beliefs upon everyone. This is nothing but preaching about how you hate being preached to. Hypocrite.