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

$50 says he is just a troll.

 

Agreed. Why then do so many fundamentalist Christians speak as if their beliefs are proven facts ? Not only do they claim it is fact that God exists, they go much further by claiming to know certain characteristics and actions of this God.

Correct that evolution must be proven, not disproven. Evolution does not however, address the question of how life began or where it came from.

Evolution addresses the question of how species change and this has been proven 6 ways to Sunday. The process is called genetic mutation. This happens regularly and often and each time causes a small change. Over time these changes add up to the point where a new species is formed.

Down's syndrome results from a chromosome abnormality. Women with down's syndrome are fertile.

A new species has likely evolved during the time it took you to read this post. It happens all the time.

Evolution is a hypothesis, its only treated with kid gloves because its the only real proposition atheists have.

Agreed, nor does disproving evolution prove God.

Christianity is simply a set of beliefs in relation to the nature of God. It is silly to think that such a thing a has been proven or disproven.

There are many things that humans do not know.

 

I was also raised in a deeply religious home and at a very young age asked questions for which the Pastor had no good answer.

Over time I continued to question and slowly but surely came to the conclusion that if there is a God "Christian Dogma is not it".

 

There are many good Christians who understand the difference between 1) "having a belief" and 2) forcing that belief on others.

The problem is that there is a large group of religious right fundamentalists who want to force their made up beliefs on others through law.

Such people should be attacked as they are a threat to individual rights and freedoms = the ideals on which this Country was founded.

 

Many theists including some Christians see evolution as a fact that does not go against their theological belief.

 

Yeah....soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Lots of potential to validate some assumptions we previously had just by looking at rocks. But that isn't happening.....

Talk to the OP about that...he's the one talking about carbon dating rocks. I'm talking about validating or testing using soft tissue.

 

Adam and Eve started when we learned agriculture.

 

Of course its happening.

BTW, that soft tissue is DERIVED from the fossilized bone thru complex chemical treatment. Perhaps you can explain how the surrounding fossilized bone can be radiometrically dated but somehow the soft tissue (in minute quanitity) it contains would be of such a monumentally different date.

Absence of logic and basic scientific knowlege seem to be common traits amongst creationists.

 

No. I don't think any special processes were done to find soft tissue. They simply broke open the bones. And yes, no one wants to take this opportunity to carbon date. They would simply lose their career if they did something like that.
Curiosity has its limits in this type of science.

 

Might want to actually read up a little on what "soft tissue" in this instance means and how it was derived.

Hello!!!!!!! Carbon dating is a USELESS technique for analyzing any samples over 50,000 years old.

Your conclusion is nothing but outright uniformed rejectionism.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3. The largest group of Christians in America (and the world) accept evolution as the best explanation of how our world came to be in its present form. Try again.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

I have read on this. Perhaps you haven't been curious enough to read from beginning to current on this...But I have. Soft tissue is pliable tissue....intact blood vessels, blood cells......

By the way Jonas....Do you know how they figured out soft tissue could sustain millions upon millions of years? They put blood vessels from a bird in blood and blood vessels in water and observed the results after two years. The blood bath did better and thus no need to research the matter any further.

Do you accept that experiment as a logical experiment to "know" blood can preserve soft tissue for millions of years?

 

How exactly does evolution disprove Adam and Eve?

 

You sure they won't just debate what kind of rock David used to slay Goliath?

Militant atheists seem to have strange views of what goes on in churches. Usually the one who have actually ever attended regularly in the childhood went to outlying extremist churches and now rebel against it as a proxy rebellion against their strict parents. Rather arrested development-y to me. Not a lot of people even pay attention to the minister or read the Bible regularly. It is a social event. They just want the preacher to shut up quick this week so they have time to say hey to Gertie over there in that pretty new hat and whisper the latest gossip to her.

 

Although I like your post and agree with what you said, however I vehemently disagree with this. Evolution was upgraded to a 'Scientific Theory' long ago. To add, Im sure there are plenty of Atheists who dont believe in Evolution either.

 

Adam and Eve were special creations of God according to your religious tradition. According to evolution, all humans are products of natural selection, not of special creation.

 

Catholicism is the only major one I know of that accepts evolution. You may have heard of this rather impressive movement called Protestantism as well. I would bet that the majority of American Christians are not Catholic and think evolution is stupid and evil because it says humans came from monkeys and that is impossible because there are still monkeys. Lots of Christians still think that and will think it even harder since the Pope has okayed it because they have been siding with the Bible over the Pope for hundreds of years.

The OP describes precisely what many Christians believe and they do not want you defending them by implying that they are Catholic, which is an insult to many.

 

Well, that just sounds like an alternative theory to the creation of Adam and Eve, and not a fact.

 

Regardless, the OP is wrong, and is overgeneralizing. The largest group of Christians in the world disagrees with what he is claiming all Christians believe. As I said, he created a strawman.

 

apparently you haven't read about the "soft tissue" from fossilized bones. They have not found blood cells or intact blood vessels. They found collagen, a protein.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

BTW, they experimented because the findings were so controversial and an explanation for its existences was necessary. Seems its the iron rich blood of dinosaurs that upon death became nanoparticles and interacted with the body's proteins effectively "tying them up in knots". The iron particles acted in part like formaldehyde


Yes, I do accept that the experiment was both logical and a necessary step in understanding how this condition could come about. Is it definitively the answer? well considering that there are any number of other factors as pointed out in the article, such as rapid encasement and association with sandstone, its not entirely definitive as to the cause of preservation of these proteins.

Its exactly how science works, one discovery often leads to multiple experiments to explain the processes involved to arrive at the discovered result.

Its also rather interesting that the discovered dinosaur collagen appears to be very similar to modern bird collagen.

 

1. It is a fact, that humans can be traced to a bottleneck of few individuals.
2. Most Christians do not accept a 6000 year old Universe or Planet.

Will you convert now? LOL

 

The "creation" of Adam and Eve is not a theory, it is ancient mythology. Might want to research the difference.

Since we have a rather long line of evolutionary ancestors within homo genus. Were Adam and Eve homo habilis? Cro-Magnon? Neaderthal?

How do you explain the fact that Homo Sapien and Homo Neaderthalensis were contemporaries?
Why would god create two kinds of humans and then only bestow its "love" on one?

 

Science does not say that we evolved from monkeys.
People who don't believe in evolution have been known to use the phrase "descended from monkeys".But, of course, the underlying argument behind "descended from monkeys" is not about what group humans are descended from. The argument is over the idea humans are related to other animals at all.
It's a question often posed by creationists. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. To make matters worse, in this particular case, the entire premise of the question is false. So let's knock it on the head right away.
Humans did not evolve from monkeys; humans and monkeys both evolved from an extinct common ancestor.

 

My apologies and good catch:

This was stated by Battle and I missed deleting it from my post. As you can see and have noted, my entire post was about how evolution has been proven and so therefore is "NOT" a hypothesis. It is a theory.

 

Mere opinion.

So what if there were Neaderthals? That in no way disproves that modern humans are descendants of Adam and Eve.

Contemporaries in what sense? Neanderthals could have simply evolved the way other animals did on earth.

Adam and Eve were however were specifically fashioned by God Himself.