Challenge for Christians: disprove evolution and a 6000 year old earth

because we know.

 

Well, you've convinced me.

 

we have more evidence that religion does

 

Lol, you have no evidence whatsoever.

It's like me arguing: we just know there is a God.

 

There is no proof either way that a GOD exists or not.

However there is Probability.

Probability dictates a VERY low possibility that a GOD exists in any way so advertised in the Koran, Tanakh or Bible or any other man made religious text.

Such a Probability exists at a chance even less than 1 in 10^150th.

Any probability exiting at or above 10^150th is a STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

AboveAlpha

 

Probability? Dude, do you base your life on mathematical formulas?

 

Everything and anything can be broken down into mathematics.

Probability, Causality....etc.

AboveAlpha

 

There is abundant evidence from different fields of scientific investigation.

 

Assuming that the assumptions that the equations are based on are correct, yes, but honestly, I don't think they are. I think God is unknowable scientifically.

 

At this point it is unknowable.

AboveAlpha

 

The Bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old, anywhere, so that's half of your argument shot right there.

 

Tell that to Christian fundamentalists/Creationists that think it does.

 

No, I am telling it to you, you're the one who made the claim.

 

"The evolutionary trees in our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, "The Panda's Thumb," "More Reflections In Natural History," W. W. Norton NY, 1992, 181.

Evolutionary scientists admit that the very attractive theory that evolution explains the origin of the species remains unproved. Your position requires a leap of faith.

 

I don't think so, considering it was another poster that made the claim.

 

Anyone asking for 'proof' out of religion is missing the point of religion. The moment a religious concept is proven, it devalues the main requirement of religion. Which is faith. Religion punishes knowledge and rewards faith.

And if God appeared and made his intentions clear, for example, there would be no need for religion. We could throw out the books.

 

Belief in as yet unproven scientific theories involves faith.

 

Since you want to answer for him I'll tell you.

 

Incorrect. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. A scientific theory can be incomplete (e.g. gravity), but it has some basis in fact and observable evidence.

 

I doubt that .

- - - Updated - - -

Cherry pick much?
Evolutionary scientists admit no such thing.
Eminent British biologist John Maynard Smith on Stephen Jay Gould:
"The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.”

 

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory;no credible alternative scientific theory exists. Debates within the community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred.
Evolution has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Evolution has worked fine for billions of years and will continue to do so whether you believe in it or not.

 

Not responsive to my post.

Evolution within species is not controversial. The theory that evolution accounts for the origin of the species remains an *unproven* "theory". The most prominent scientists who embrace the "theory", including Gould, have frankly admitted the shortage of any conclusive evidence to prove the theory.

 

Faith involves belief in things not proven.

Belief of anything unproven involves a leap of faith. Evidence can often be found to support unproven theories and beliefs.

 

I have not found any prominent evolution scientist who does not agree with Gould's position regarding the state of the evidence.

"An astonishing fact about Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is that it was conceived in the absence of two major kinds of support that would have been helpful to it—evidence from the then meager fossil record and knowledge of the mechanism of inheritance." Tim Flannery, Reviewing Stephen J. Gould's "The Structures of Evolutionary Theory", Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, NYR Books, Volume 49, Number 9 · May 23, 2002.

 

Do they deny speciation ?
Well, the fact is, it doesn't matter. Even if we ignore all the instances of speciation that have actually been observed, we would still know, with a great degree of certainty, that all life is related via shared ancestry. Even if we did not understand all the mechanisms of evolution, we would still know that all life shares ancestry. This is because the theory that all life shares ancestry can be tested without reference to mechanisms, and without needing it to be witnessed.