How would a christian disprove evolution and do it with evidence.

[Pauliesonne]

I just wanted to know.

[Ducky]

I just wanted to know.



Well, showing up to a debate with a pre-dinosaur era human would do it.

Not gonna happen, but still...

[Beleth]

Or a chrysanthemum whose parents were a gazelle and a seahorse.

[Jas]

I think finding a boat perched on top of a moutain full of velociraptors and unicorns would work as well.

[geni]

Why would a christian want to?

[Moon-Spinner]

Show up to the debate with Kirk Cameron. That should have those Evolutionists shaking in their shoes!

[ImaginalDisc]

If the Bible were proven to be factually correct about the origin of life tomorrow, that still wouldn't disprove evolution, it would only disprove our theories about the origin of species. Evolution is a process of natural selection, and is process that is well documented.

[headscratcher4]

If the Bible were proven to be factually correct about the origin of life tomorrow, that still wouldn't disprove evolution, it would only disprove our theories about the origin of species. Evolution is a process of natural selection, and is process that is well documented.

Not if everything were shown to have appeared as is 7,000 year ago....

[Jas]

Show up to the debate with Kirk Cameron. That should have those Evolutionists shaking in their shoes!
Oh No! Don't do that! That would reveal Evolution for the fairytale it is!

[Melendwyr]

If the Bible were proven to be factually correct about the origin of life tomorrow, that still wouldn't disprove evolution, it would only disprove our theories about the origin of species. Evolution is a process of natural selection, and is process that is well documented. No - it would only mean that natural selection wasn't responsible for the genesis of life. It would change nothing about the vast evidence indicating that speciation and adaptation is not the result of a pre-existing design.

[ImaginalDisc]

No - it would only mean that natural selection wasn't responsible for the genesis of life. It would change nothing about the vast evidence indicating that speciation and adaptation is not the result of a pre-existing design.

Natural selection isn't the end all and be all of evolution, there's also mutation and sexual selection, for example. Natural selection is the most prominent mechanism of evolution.

[Loon]

No - it would only mean that natural selection wasn't responsible for the genesis of life.

Actually, you don't need the bible to tell you that. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only with what happened to life after the origin.

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually, you don't need the bible to tell you that. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only with what happened to life after the origin.

Yeay! Exactly. Life could have been placed on this planet by Xenu, and evolution would still take place. Living things evolve, and that's as inevitable as a dropped rock falling.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Well, showing up to a debate with a pre-dinosaur era human would do it.

Not gonna happen, but still...

Or find a fossilized dinosaur with a saddle. Man I still can't get over that one. Cracks me up every time I think about it!

LLH

[rharbers]

I guess that if he could dig up a skeleton of say a T-Rex with a fully undigested human skeleton in the same rock, that might just do it.

[Tricky]

Generally, they turn to some pseudoscience book like Refuting Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890512582/qid=1137619939/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/104-4610512-5273516?s=books&v=glance&n=283155). There, they memorize such things as:

"Similarities between human and ape DNA are often exaggerated. This
figure was not derived from a direct comparison of sequences. Rather
the original paper inferred 97% similarity between human and chimp DNA
from a rather crude technique called DNA hybridization."
***
"Population genetics calculations shows that animals with human -like
generation times of about 20 years could substitute no more than about
1700 mutations in that time."

Of course, these are not correct, but they sound scientific, so creationists use them.

And of course, they always point to the Piltdown Man as an example of scientists being wrong. Also, there have been anomalous radiometric dating results which have long been explained, but to a creationist, a single example is enough.

This is why it is so hard to discuss evolution with a creationist. The reason they are creationists is because they believe that if even one thing is shown to be untrue about the Bible, their whole universe will collapse. They do not seem to grasp the concept of theories in which a single cog, if proved faulty, can be replaced by another better-fitting cog. It is a completely different mind set.

[Pauliesonne]

So basically, fundamentalists are stupid.

[ReFLeX]

If the Bible said that everything that exists are composites that are infinitely divisible, then they'd be scrutinizing atomic theory for flaws instead.

[Jas]

So basically, fundamentalists are stupid.
Pretty much, yeah.

[ReFLeX]

So basically, fundamentalists are stupid.
No, ignorant. It's often all that they were taught. Once that's occurred, they're subject to confirmation bias to a great extent.

ETA: Ignore these guys, they're just taking your bait.

[Ducky]

So basically, fundamentalists are stupid.


It would seem so.

[Loon]

So basically, fundamentalists are stupid.

No. Fundamentalism is stupid. Fundamentalist, like pretty much any other group, range in intelligence from "bag of hammers" to "frighteningly intelligent."

Delusion and intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

[logical muse]

So basically, fundamentalists are stupid.
Ugly, too.

eta: I don't mean physically.

[Jas]

Ugly, too.

eta: I don't mean physically.

Yeah, some, Mormons especially, are fricking HOT!

They can come and convert me any day!

[Piscivore]

Or find a fossilized dinosaur with a saddle.

"Jesus horse"

[Achán hiNidráne]

Yeah, some, Mormons especially, are fricking HOT!

They can come and convert me any day!
Yes, but knowing most conservative Christians they'll insist on marriage before intercourse. Then it's a lifetime of dry, passionless, missionary-position-and-only-for-procreation-coitus with a woman so sexually repressed you might was well be sleeping with a mannequin. That is, of course, if she doesn't cut you off right after the honeymoon.

Do yourself a favor, find a nice atheist girl you can shack up with. If that fails, well, hookers are always a good alternative.

[Jas]

Yes, but knowing most conservative Christians they'll insist on marriage before intercourse. Then it's a lifetime of dry, passionless, missionary-position-and-only-for-procreation-coitus with a woman so sexually repressed you might was well be sleeping with a mannequin. That is, of course, if she doesn't cut you off right after the honeymoon.

Do yourself a favor, find a nice atheist girl you can shack up with. If that fails, well, hookers are always a good alternative.

Well, I had a comment about your second sentence that isn't approprite for this forum.

But why would I want to shack up with an atheist girl?

[LostAngeles]

Well, I had a comment about your second sentence that isn't approprite for this forum.

But why would I want to shack up with an atheist girl?

What about an agnostic woman? And how much are you planning to drink at TAM?

[Gavan]

What about an agnostic woman? And how much are you planning to drink at TAM?


Can you buy a blow up Christian???

[fishbob]

No, ignorant. It's often all that they were taught. Once that's occurred, they're subject to confirmation bias to a great extent.

ETA: Ignore these guys, they're just taking your bait.
Ignorant means lacking in knowledge. Deliberate ignorance - ignernt and damn proud of it - is stupidity. Fundamentalists know that knowledge is available, but they choose to not participate. Therefore I vote stupid.

ETA Boy, that came out wrong didn't it?

[ReFLeX]

Ignorant means lacking in knowledge. Deliberate ignorance - ignernt and damn proud of it - is stupidity. Fundamentalists know that knowledge is available, but they choose to not participate. Therefore I vote stupid.

ETA Boy, that came out wrong didn't it?
How would they know to value knowledge when Jesus Jesus Jesus is all they've ever known? Some kids never even have a chance. Is that their fault? Yes? Fine, there's no arguing with you.

[Jas]

What about an agnostic woman? And how much are you planning to drink at TAM?
Not THAT much!

[Tormac]

If they could get some solid evidence that God actualy exsists, it would be a good start in convincing me.

[Roboramma]

Natural selection isn't the end all and be all of evolution, there's also mutation and sexual selection, for example. Natural selection is the most prominent mechanism of evolution.


Isn't sexual selection just a sub-set of natural selection?

[Lynx2174]

disproving that mutations occur would probably get it in one.

similarly proving that natural selection doesn't occur would also work.

if you could find some sort of physical, biological barrier that prevents speciation, that would disprove what creationists call macroevolution.

none of these are particularly likely to ever happen, though

[c4ts]

I just wanted to know.

He could start by proving that animal domestication is physically impossible...

[ImaginalDisc]

Isn't sexual selection just a sub-set of natural selection?


Not really. Sexual selection sometimes opperates entirely in opposition to natural selection. Look at the Irish Elk. The males have huge, and incredibly akward racks of antlers, because that's what the does like. Oh wait, they went extinct. Run away sexual selection can destroy a species.

[c4ts]

Not really. Sexual selection sometimes opperates entirely in opposition to natural selection. Look at the Irish Elk. The males have huge, and incredibly akward racks of antlers, because that's what the does like. Oh wait, they went extinct. Run away sexual selection can destroy a species.

Darwin calls sexual selection a form of natural selection. However he points out that it's easy to identify sexually selected characteristics when they serve no immediate survival purposes, like the bright colors on tropical birds. That doesn't mean they can't also aid survival.

[Ian Osborne]

Yeah, some, Mormons especially, are fricking HOT!

They can come and convert me any day!
Yeah, but you'd only get him on Wednesday mornings and Friday afternoons. For the rest of the week, he'd be with his other wives...

[LostAngeles]

Not THAT much!

Alas.

Besides, my boyfriend would kill me.

[ImaginalDisc]

Darwin calls sexual selection a form of natural selection. However he points out that it's easy to identify sexually selected characteristics when they serve no immediate survival purposes, like the bright colors on tropical birds. That doesn't mean they can't also aid survival.

It was ten years before Darwin wrote about sexual slection. People nitpicked his theory for not taking into account the obvious example of the peacock. A lot of animals experiance sexual selection for useful traits, but a lot of sexual selection support appearantly silly traits. Well, silly, but it makes sure the anaimals have sex and reproduce, and genetically, that's much better than being a very atheletic lonely animal, so that's that.

[Jas]

Alas.

Besides, my boyfriend would kill me.

For not inviting him?

[10001]

I just wanted to know.

boldy go where no man/woman has gone before.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

There's no secret as to what the nature of the evidence that would cast evolution in to high doubt among scientists is, a fossil in implausibly the wrong place. Now what does this mean. It's always possible that something survives longer than we thought (i.e. the coelicanth) or that a fossil could be found that is a few million years earlier than it should be. Specifically, it would have to be a fossil indesputably dated too early as to make evolutionary sense. That's why no dinosaurs with man. Dinosaurs are before primates so they are inherently before man, you can't have progeny existing before ancestory. What's nice about this is it's a perfectly reasonable burden of evidence and it has never been met. What does that tell you? Also interesting to note that the "unreliable" dating methods, don't seem to be inaccurate enough to meet this burden.

[epepke]

No, ignorant. It's often all that they were taught.

I disagree with this. Fundamentalists have been working very hard to prevent education from happening, so any ignorance is chosen, and that's stupidity. Furthermore, prominent creationists obviously do have some apprehension of the literature; they just choose to lie and prevaricate. Again, stupidity.

[ReFLeX]

I disagree with this. Fundamentalists have been working very hard to prevent education from happening, so any ignorance is chosen, and that's stupidity. Furthermore, prominent creationists obviously do have some apprehension of the literature; they just choose to lie and prevaricate. Again, stupidity.
Fundamental attribution error. Simple. You show me some evidence that fundamentalists are of statistically lower intelligence, then I'll believe you. After Milgram's teacher experiment, you think it's so improbable that people could be thoroughly brainwashed enough to believe anything? The context for that study was Americans wanting to believe the Nazis were of a different psychological makeup, and not just "following orders" as they claimed. Not so. The fact that they actively promote ignorance, and lie to keep their delusions whole, doesn't mean any of us wouldn't be capable of the same, in the right environment. We can deny it, but the truth is, you aren't them, and logic does not reign over human behaviour. It never has.

[François Lesueur]

I just wanted to know.
Have you ever made a mistake and then repeated it only to have the outcome the same as before? Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Where is evolution within our human endevors that should have ended war after the first rock and spear was thrown?

[Dr Adequate]

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Where?

Where is evolution within our human endevors that should have ended war after the first rock and spear was thrown?What?

[Roboramma]

Not really. Sexual selection sometimes opperates entirely in opposition to natural selection. Look at the Irish Elk. The males have huge, and incredibly akward racks of antlers, because that's what the does like. Oh wait, they went extinct. Run away sexual selection can destroy a species.

Well, any definition of natural selection just shows that those animals that fail to reproduce don't pass on their genes. Thus those that do pass on their genes tend to have genes that are better at being passed on.
Big antlers are just one strategy to getting your genes passed on, as are courtship displays. The selection pressure is somewhat special in that it comes from the opposite sex, but what makes it meaningful is still natural selection - the preferential reproduction of certain traits (and I know, that's a poor definition, but I'm writing quickly).

A salmon swims for many miles upstream in a monumental effort that ends in it's death, in order to pass on it's genes.
A peacock grows a big showy tail in order to pass on it's genes. Both have developed useful strategies based on thier environments- environments that include other animals, including those of their own species.
I see a difference that makes it meaningful to talk about sexual selection as a special case, but there is no way in which it is fundamentally different from other forms of selection.

Then again, I'm probably just making a stupid semantic argument. :P

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, any definition of natural selection just shows that those animals that fail to reproduce don't pass on their genes. Thus those that do pass on their genes tend to have genes that are better at being passed on.
Big antlers are just one strategy to getting your genes passed on, as are courtship displays. The selection pressure is somewhat special in that it comes from the opposite sex, but what makes it meaningful is still natural selection - the preferential reproduction of certain traits (and I know, that's a poor definition, but I'm writing quickly).

A salmon swims for many miles upstream in a monumental effort that ends in it's death, in order to pass on it's genes.
A peacock grows a big showy tail in order to pass on it's genes. Both have developed useful strategies based on thier environments- environments that include other animals, including those of their own species.
I see a difference that makes it meaningful to talk about sexual selection as a special case, but there is no way in which it is fundamentally different from other forms of selection.

Then again, I'm probably just making a stupid semantic argument. :P
No, it's not a silly semantic arguement. Adaptations which help an animal reproduce are great, but a lot of those adaptations cause the animal to suffer greater risks, from predation especially. In some cases, the cost of sexually desireable traits becomes prohibative, so it's sometimes useful to consider sexual selection and natrual selection as seperate pressures.