lord_emperor
Golden Member
- Nov 4, 2009
- 1,380
- 1
- 0
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,658
- 15,868
- 146
I'll see your intelligent falling and raise you the repeal of the second law of thermodynamics
http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,658
- 15,868
- 146
BudAshes
Lifer
- Jul 20, 2003
- 13,991
- 3,348
- 146
We have these things called fossils. Crazy shit I know, but it proves evolution.
Juddog
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 7,851
- 6
- 81
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,307
- 12,823
- 136
phucheneh
Diamond Member
- Jun 30, 2012
- 7,306
- 5
- 0
Of course you can't 'prove' him wrong. He's going to want irrefutable proof.
You could invent a time machine, take him back millions of years in time, and show him the proof. But then he's just gonna argue that you must have calibrated the time machine wrong.
Prove evolution? Shit, by creationist standards, you probably can't prove ANY history that is not from, say, the 18th or 19th centuries forward and extremely well-known and documented. Even then, they could argue if they wanted. How can YOU yourself prove that, oh, I dunno, Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address? MAYBE IT WAS FUTURE ROBOLINCOLN IN DISGUISE! PROVE ME WRONG.
The obvious irony is that, shit, forget god and creationism...we can barely 'prove' Jesus even existed (I don't think we can, but it's 'generally' accepted as having happened). We sure as hell can't prove any of his 'miracles.' We have no proof of where the Bible came from...but, of course, the best evidence we have, you know...kinda points toward it being made-up horseshit.
You could invent a time machine, take him back millions of years in time, and show him the proof. But then he's just gonna argue that you must have calibrated the time machine wrong.
Prove evolution? Shit, by creationist standards, you probably can't prove ANY history that is not from, say, the 18th or 19th centuries forward and extremely well-known and documented. Even then, they could argue if they wanted. How can YOU yourself prove that, oh, I dunno, Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address? MAYBE IT WAS FUTURE ROBOLINCOLN IN DISGUISE! PROVE ME WRONG.
The obvious irony is that, shit, forget god and creationism...we can barely 'prove' Jesus even existed (I don't think we can, but it's 'generally' accepted as having happened). We sure as hell can't prove any of his 'miracles.' We have no proof of where the Bible came from...but, of course, the best evidence we have, you know...kinda points toward it being made-up horseshit.
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2004
- 9,306
- 4
- 81
It's unprovable just like you can't prove there isn't a magical invisible unicorn with near unlimited power (the slight lack of power is where evil comes from) that controls almost everything in the universe. It's hardly worth putting even the slightest thought into.
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
Which genesis story in the bible do you have to disprove? Was man or animals made first? Was woman made from adams rib or from dust? I need clarification.
In the context of the challenge you could probably prove that the literal interpretation of Genesis can be disproven using the following argument.
Serpents (which is a synonym for snakes) are not capable of speech because they do not have vocal chords (a hard scientific fact). The Book of Genesis makes no mention of Satan possessing the Serpent and since God punished the Serpent directly it can be assumed that Serpent would've been acting on its own accord. Since the punishment handed to the Serpent did not involve any removal of speaking ability. You only have three possible scenarios:
1. Serpents lost the ability to speak over time which would prove the existence of evolution which nullifies the literal interpretation of Genesis.
2. Serpents never could speak which would disprove any literal interpretation of Genesis.
3. Any additional events that occurred in Genesis were omitted from the book which would mean that Genesis would be considered a paraphrased account and not a literal interpretation because of the lack of a word for word substitution that is required for a literal paraphrase.
Serpents (which is a synonym for snakes) are not capable of speech because they do not have vocal chords (a hard scientific fact). The Book of Genesis makes no mention of Satan possessing the Serpent and since God punished the Serpent directly it can be assumed that Serpent would've been acting on its own accord. Since the punishment handed to the Serpent did not involve any removal of speaking ability. You only have three possible scenarios:
1. Serpents lost the ability to speak over time which would prove the existence of evolution which nullifies the literal interpretation of Genesis.
2. Serpents never could speak which would disprove any literal interpretation of Genesis.
3. Any additional events that occurred in Genesis were omitted from the book which would mean that Genesis would be considered a paraphrased account and not a literal interpretation because of the lack of a word for word substitution that is required for a literal paraphrase.
ViperXX
Platinum Member
- Nov 2, 2001
- 2,058
- 10
- 81
I'd like to see a evolutionists diary detailing the history of man that is 2000+ years old.
Last edited:
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 60,179
- 10,645
- 126
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
mmntech
Lifer
- Sep 20, 2007
- 17,501
- 12
- 0
You can't prove these people wrong because they do not listen to reason or sound science. Ignorance is a security blanket for a lot of people. They fear the unknown and that which they do not understand. So they feel comfort in their belief that life's greatest mystery has been unquestionably solved. Anything that tears them out of their comfort zone is treated with hostility and skepticism.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to disprove the Bible. We don't even know what really caused the Big Bang. Maybe it was some sort of deity. What we can do is poke major holes in the creationists argument over dating and evolution.
The age of the Earth being created in 6000 BC was a number basically pulled out of the asses of early Christian and Jewish monks based on generations of the descendants of Adam. The Bible itself doesn't actually give a creation date. Assuming God is real, a day of his may not even be 24-hours. He's God and he can do as he damn pleases. So one of his days might equal a billion of our years. IIRC, even the Catholic Church accepts the latter. The 6000 BC year figure seems to be mostly spoken of by Evangelical protestants.
We can poke holes in this further using radio carbon dating and astronomy. Creationists say carbon dating is inaccurate. Maybe not to the exact date, but we do know how quickly C14 decays into C12 quite accurately. We have found objects produced by humans older than 6000 BC, and the remains of other animals even older still.
We also know how fast light travels in a vacuum. We can measure astronomical distance with decent enough accuracy. According to creationists, the universe should be no more than 8000 light years across. Our own galaxy is at least 100,000 light years in diameter. We can measure distant radiation that is 13.8 billion light years away. There's no way God could have created an object that distant only 8000 years ago. Maximum light speed is a constant. You can only slow it down. If he did, we shouldn't be able to see it.
On to evolution, even though we still refer to it as a "theory", it's pretty much proven at this point. It's even directly observable. Each time a virus or bacteria becomes drug resistant, that's evolution and natural selection at work. A bacteria that resists the drug is more likely to pass on its genes to the next generation. Not to mention the heaps of fossil records that show all plants and animals, including us, are the result of subtle changes over millions of years. There's just too much evidence to ignore.
This doesn't disprove that a god wasn't the catalyst of creation but it does destroy the Christian creationist argument. I'll leave on one final note. Many cultures have vastly different creation myths. It's kind of arrogant to proclaim one being more true than the others when they're all equally difficult to prove or disprove.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to disprove the Bible. We don't even know what really caused the Big Bang. Maybe it was some sort of deity. What we can do is poke major holes in the creationists argument over dating and evolution.
The age of the Earth being created in 6000 BC was a number basically pulled out of the asses of early Christian and Jewish monks based on generations of the descendants of Adam. The Bible itself doesn't actually give a creation date. Assuming God is real, a day of his may not even be 24-hours. He's God and he can do as he damn pleases. So one of his days might equal a billion of our years. IIRC, even the Catholic Church accepts the latter. The 6000 BC year figure seems to be mostly spoken of by Evangelical protestants.
We can poke holes in this further using radio carbon dating and astronomy. Creationists say carbon dating is inaccurate. Maybe not to the exact date, but we do know how quickly C14 decays into C12 quite accurately. We have found objects produced by humans older than 6000 BC, and the remains of other animals even older still.
We also know how fast light travels in a vacuum. We can measure astronomical distance with decent enough accuracy. According to creationists, the universe should be no more than 8000 light years across. Our own galaxy is at least 100,000 light years in diameter. We can measure distant radiation that is 13.8 billion light years away. There's no way God could have created an object that distant only 8000 years ago. Maximum light speed is a constant. You can only slow it down. If he did, we shouldn't be able to see it.
On to evolution, even though we still refer to it as a "theory", it's pretty much proven at this point. It's even directly observable. Each time a virus or bacteria becomes drug resistant, that's evolution and natural selection at work. A bacteria that resists the drug is more likely to pass on its genes to the next generation. Not to mention the heaps of fossil records that show all plants and animals, including us, are the result of subtle changes over millions of years. There's just too much evidence to ignore.
This doesn't disprove that a god wasn't the catalyst of creation but it does destroy the Christian creationist argument. I'll leave on one final note. Many cultures have vastly different creation myths. It's kind of arrogant to proclaim one being more true than the others when they're all equally difficult to prove or disprove.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Ruptga
Lifer
- Aug 3, 2006
- 10,246
- 207
- 106
I came here to post this. I wish I had 10k to put up, I'd have the charade over with inside half an hour. Genesis chapter 1 presents and entirely different sequence of events than does chapter 2. It really is that cut and done.
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2004
- 9,306
- 4
- 81
They'd just say some bullshit like god's word is strange or what god really meant with those is "fill in bullshit here." There's no way you can prove what god really meant.
Note that you have to pick a judge from a list of judges that he compiled. So basically he picked a bunch of Christian Talibani who will say to whatever evidence you present that the Bible is the infallible word of the flying spaghetti monster... err... god I mean, and that your evidence is therefor false.
You cannot 'win' by default as he rigs the 'competition' by selecting judges that are as retarded as he is and are not able to think for themselves or to even consider evidence to begin with.
You cannot 'win' by default as he rigs the 'competition' by selecting judges that are as retarded as he is and are not able to think for themselves or to even consider evidence to begin with.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter