The Challenge -- Edit added to original post.

[BlueLancer]

The Story of Creating is just that, a story. It is not meant to be scientifically accurate. So there is no reason why any Catholic should have any disagreement with that. The Catholic faith has accepted the theory of Evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't know about protestants, methodist or any other christian denominations, but the catholic church has acknowledged the factual accuracy of evolution a long time ago. Then again, I suppose most christians on tip.it aren't catholic then.

[assassin_696]

warri0r, you probably know that i'm with you on this one. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Korla, you definitely make an interesting point, but I suppose we have to assume that science is the closest we can get to what really is the truth.

[baron8000]

 

The Story of Creating is just that, a story. It is not meant to be scientifically accurate. So there is no reason why any Catholic should have any disagreement with that. The Catholic faith has accepted the theory of Evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't know about protestants, methodist or any other christian denominations, but the catholic church has acknowledged the factual accuracy of evolution a long time ago. Then again, I suppose most christians on tip.it aren't catholic then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority of Protestants believe in evolution as well, we simply see it as God's way of getting things done. Unfortunately the flamy flamers represent a small proportion of us, as with all things the smallest shout loudest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On-Topic - I have a small problem with your standing (nothing to do with your religion-based topic) but with your idea "until you can prove this wrong, it must be right". There are two definitions of correct - that which is proven, and that which is not dis-proven. By the same token anyone could post a topic based on the existence of anything be it God, Ghosts or a small purple dwarf called Colin - until it is disproven it must exist by your thinking yes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that's coherent, but I've just got back so it might have holes please discuss.

[zaquierming]

That which is not dis-proven would be merely theory.

[baron8000]

Slight mistake there, that which remains not dis-proven is a hypothesis, that which is proven is a theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anybody read the science of discworld 3? Anyone familiar with the discworld series would enjoy it as would anyone interested in the creationism/evolution argument it does have serious science in there.

[LGBR]

I challenge you to fully prove evolution. Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles. :roll:

I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence that supports creationism

[Kinslayer777]

 

 

 

Evolution is not an argument against religion. Evolution happens in everything in the nature as a normal biological process, just like you evolve from a child to an adult. That's short term natural evolution, then there's long term evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken, as I'm not an expert. But first off, you do not evolve from child to an adult. You grow. You change. That is not evolution, in the darwinism-driven evolution theory (Which, by theory, does not mean it is not a fact or is a scientific debate- that is a misconception).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may ask, how giraffes get their long necks. Their necks don't stretch over age, they might grow as they would regardless- but they are not evolving from a need to reach tall trees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the most part, short term natural evolution does not exist. Some things, such as the events in London during the industrial revolution, with moths during from white to black- are a proof of survival (the better camouflaged ones thrived in the darker air).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only "short term evolution" that i know of is a debated issue whether bacteria evolve in cultures to become resistant. The thing noticed is that from a bacteria culture (bacteria have one parent- so they all have the same genes), is that some bacteria can become resistant to a drug designed to kill them- and then after time the culture will survive and become resistant. With respect to my lack of expertise, I personally suspect such a large advantageous mutation would not happen so quickly and suspect some sort of hidden variance that'd be advantageous for bacteria evolved in the past- but is unknown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is, what is this "short term evolution" you speak of, and are you sure you understand evolution correctly? Furthermore, I suspect only a significantly flawed teaching could persuade you that evolution does not debunk the classical religious theme that earth is 6,000 ish years old. Furthermore, I would be horrified if you were taught biology that way in an attempt to make you think you understand biolog, when really you've been mistaught.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I challenge you to fully prove evolution. Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles. :roll:

I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence that supports creationism

 

 

 

That is, incase you didn't notice, the point of this thread. Spam mkay? Even if, the first post was spam.

[LGBR]

 

 

 

 

Evolution is not an argument against religion. Evolution happens in everything in the nature as a normal biological process, just like you evolve from a child to an adult. That's short term natural evolution, then there's long term evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken, as I'm not an expert. But first off, you do not evolve from child to an adult. You grow. You change. That is not evolution, in the darwinism-driven evolution theory (Which, by theory, does not mean it is not a fact or is a scientific debate- that is a misconception).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may ask, how giraffes get their long necks. Their necks don't stretch over age, they might grow as they would regardless- but they are not evolving from a need to reach tall trees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the most part, short term natural evolution does not exist. Some things, such as the events in London during the industrial revolution, with moths during from white to black- are a proof of survival (the better camouflaged ones thrived in the darker air).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only "short term evolution" that i know of is a debated issue whether bacteria evolve in cultures to become resistant. The thing noticed is that from a bacteria culture (bacteria have one parent- so they all have the same genes), is that some bacteria can become resistant to a drug designed to kill them- and then after time the culture will survive and become resistant. With respect to my lack of expertise, I personally suspect such a large advantageous mutation would not happen so quickly and suspect some sort of hidden variance that'd be advantageous for bacteria evolved in the past- but is unknown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is, what is this "short term evolution" you speak of, and are you sure you understand evolution correctly? Furthermore, I suspect only a significantly flawed teaching could persuade you that evolution does not debunk the classical religious theme that earth is 6,000 ish years old. Furthermore, I would be horrified if you were taught biology that way in an attempt to make you think you understand biolog, when really you've been mistaught.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I challenge you to fully prove evolution. Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles. :roll:

I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence that supports creationism

 

 

 

That is, incase you didn't notice, the point of this thread. Spam mkay? Even if, the first post was spam.

Most people don't argue with Bluelancer and win, hes one of those people who only talk when they know what they're talking about, and he usually does

[zaquierming]

 

I challenge you to fully prove evolution. Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles. :roll:

I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence that supports creationism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible is the closest thing. If it were evidence it would not be Religion.

[Kinslayer777]

 

 

 

Most people don't argue with Bluelancer and win, hes one of those people who only talk when they know what they're talking about, and he usually does

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, Lg, complete spam. It's great if he can prove me wrong. That's the point. But your saying, your threatening as if it could be considered a threat, is spam. It is, you might want to know, the point- one of us being proven either side, or ultimately either of us learning something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll be glad to hear what bluelancer says.

[assassin_696]

 

 

The Story of Creating is just that, a story. It is not meant to be scientifically accurate. So there is no reason why any Catholic should have any disagreement with that. The Catholic faith has accepted the theory of Evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't know about protestants, methodist or any other christian denominations, but the catholic church has acknowledged the factual accuracy of evolution a long time ago. Then again, I suppose most christians on tip.it aren't catholic then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority of Protestants believe in evolution as well, we simply see it as God's way of getting things done. Unfortunately the flamy flamers represent a small proportion of us, as with all things the smallest shout loudest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except for those pesky evangelical protestants :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On-Topic - I have a small problem with your standing (nothing to do with your religion-based topic) but with your idea "until you can prove this wrong, it must be right". There are two definitions of correct - that which is proven, and that which is not dis-proven. By the same token anyone could post a topic based on the existence of anything be it God, Ghosts or a small purple dwarf called Colin - until it is disproven it must exist by your thinking yes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that's coherent, but I've just got back so it might have holes please discuss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except, evolution and the whole earth being several billion years old is the much more widely accepted and proven theory. The earth being 6000 years old is a very unpopular theory, so asking people to prove that isn't logical fallacy.

[warri0r45]

warri0r, you probably know that i'm with you on this one.

 

 

 

Thanks for your support. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On-Topic - I have a small problem with your standing (nothing to do with your religion-based topic) but with your idea "until you can prove this wrong, it must be right".

 

 

 

My standing on this topic is the fact that creationists use blatantly false sciece to justify thier claims. It's not a case of trying to prove my stance wrong or right, because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community embrace an old earth and evolutionary theory, no matter what you hear from creationists trying to make you unsure. I'm not trying to fill your head with childish rhetoric of 'I'm right so there!,' I'm trying to rid peoples misconceptions and misuses of science to justify false claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the most part, short term natural evolution does not exist. Some things, such as the events in London during the industrial revolution, with moths during from white to black- are a proof of survival (the better camouflaged ones thrived in the darker air).

 

 

 

Wow, that's odd as all the half organised creationist sites I've ever visited concede that 'micro' evolution is true according to natural selection and use that very example to testify to it's truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway guys, back on track I've had 2 entrants for 0 positive results.

[Kinslayer777]

That's a well known text book example of changes in populations (some say survival of fittest), but it's not in the slightest evolution. The white moths, having survived best, were most evident, but the black moths still existed. Air got black, and white moths became cabbaged. Black moths thrived. There is no evolution there, merely a mathematical lightly hood that the better camouflaged die less/noticed less. Over time, though, had the black moths turned lighter in response to, say, the bird's eyes becoming more attune to the color black- that might be evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as I know there is no microevolution - I'm awaiting correction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On another note, I believe I heard somewhere the last global evolved trait was tolerance to other animal's (cow like animals) milk, around 10,000 years ago before large beiring straight migration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe people dislike evolution. As organisms evolve, the noticeable differences take many many years to notice. Maybe it's religion that caused this, but people this the Egyptians, romans, that that's long ago. That was yesterday (more like seconds ago).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to repeat that although I act like I know alot/arrogant, I'm not in anyway an expert. I believe people are unaware that natural selection, breeding, is not evolution. It's a peice of the puzzle, but they're not interchangeable. It is quite possible over a long or even short time (Ex. russian led domesticating fox's experiment) a trait that was in the organism already can emerge, but it's not a new trait. It was there already.

[warri0r45]

I believe people are unaware that natural selection, breeding, is not evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural selection and the subsequent breeding of the strongest is a key mechanism to evolution. The natural mutations occuring in DNA replication when forming new sperm and egg cells propogate new (or edited, if you like) information to the offspring. (When I say new information, it's information that wasn't there in the previous generation due to genetic code mispairing, which is natural and undisputed). These variations can be of benefit (a darker colour in moths), thus making them survive longer and be more immune to predation or the harsh nature of thier environment. Each of these things leads to a longer and stronger period of reproduction which ensures they spread thier genes and any possible furthur mutations to the next generation. This is usually dubbed 'micro' evolution by creationists in particular and they don't doubt that it does happen. We have seen this happen in nature and in the lab with fruit flies etc. From memory, I heard that some creationists believe these changes are temporary for some reason and they will change back, which is nonsense as genes don't have a brain or memory to change back to what they were in previous generations. But I digress...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, yes, no offence or anything, but I think your knowlege of evolution is lacking. I could send you some sources via PM if you'd like.

[anonimu]

"In 2002, an Australian team led by Paul Davies came to the conclusion that the speed of light is changing."

 

 

 

This could have really strange consequences, which includes that the speed that we travel with in the 4th dimension is changing. If this is one of the consequences, the Earth might be 6000yrs old in sometime's value of 1yr (for example, if 1yr now is 2/3 million times longer than 1yr at the beggining of the Earth, the Earth would 6000yrs old measured in yrs' length at the beggining of the Earth).

 

 

 

Also, different living things have different biological perceptions of the speed of time. If god were the first conscious living being (which would probably mean he wasn't carbon based, but was more like a galaxy whose components could interact, much like the chemicals in out brain, and that it's probably dead by now due to the universe expanding), the Earth might be 6000 of his years old.

[warri0r45]

"In 2002, an Australian team led by Paul Davies came to the conclusion that the speed of light is changing."

 

 

 

This could have really strange consequences, which includes that the speed that we travel with in the 4th dimension is changing. If this is one of the consequences, the Earth might be 6000yrs old in sometime's value of 1yr (for example, if 1yr now is 2/3 million times longer than 1yr at the beggining of the Earth, the Earth would 6000yrs old measured in yrs' length at the beggining of the Earth).

 

 

 

Also, different living things have different biological perceptions of the speed of time. If god were the first conscious living being (which would probably mean he wasn't carbon based, but was more like a galaxy whose components could interact, much like the chemicals in out brain, and that it's probably dead by now due to the universe expanding), the Earth might be 6000 of his years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I need the source of the information, thanks.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

My point is, what is this "short term evolution" you speak of, and are you sure you understand evolution correctly? Furthermore, I suspect only a significantly flawed teaching could persuade you that evolution does not debunk the classical religious theme that earth is 6,000 ish years old. Furthermore, I would be horrified if you were taught biology that way in an attempt to make you think you understand biolog, when really you've been mistaught.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was using it, the child growing up to be an adult, as an example of biological evolution, not natural. Please read the definition of evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

any process of formation or growth; development:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And short-term biological evolution does occur in nature, please read about microevolution. It can occur in less than a few decades, and some mosquitoes and other insects are proven to adapt to global warming already, killing off the weak gene pool which can't stand the heat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say evolution doesn't debunk a young earth theory. In fact, it makes it impossible due to the evidence we can gather just by using radiometric dating on certain objects like old pre-human skulls which prove beyond doubt those humans walked on the Earth over 2 million years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They also had a shorter stature, different teeth, different bone structure, but they resemble humans too much to be another species itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said evolution does not disprove religion. Evolution doesn't prove a "God is impossible", therefore you can still be religious, and accept evolutionary facts.

[Guest]

 

 

The Story of Creating is just that, a story. It is not meant to be scientifically accurate. So there is no reason why any Catholic should have any disagreement with that. The Catholic faith has accepted the theory of Evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't know about protestants, methodist or any other christian denominations, but the catholic church has acknowledged the factual accuracy of evolution a long time ago. Then again, I suppose most christians on tip.it aren't catholic then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority of Protestants believe in evolution as well, we simply see it as God's way of getting things done. Unfortunately the flamy flamers represent a small proportion of us, as with all things the smallest shout loudest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you're saying a mighty powerful God in which you believe in, who created the heavens and the earth (according to you and your faith) wasn't powerful enough to just "create" humans but had to rely on a natural occurrence to get the job done. Seems like a weak god you believe in.

[Celt23]

 

 

 

The Story of Creating is just that, a story. It is not meant to be scientifically accurate. So there is no reason why any Catholic should have any disagreement with that. The Catholic faith has accepted the theory of Evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't know about protestants, methodist or any other christian denominations, but the catholic church has acknowledged the factual accuracy of evolution a long time ago. Then again, I suppose most christians on tip.it aren't catholic then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority of Protestants believe in evolution as well, we simply see it as God's way of getting things done. Unfortunately the flamy flamers represent a small proportion of us, as with all things the smallest shout loudest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you're saying a mighty powerful God in which you believe in, who created the heavens and the earth (according to you and your faith) wasn't powerful enough to just "create" humans but had to rely on a natural occurrence to get the job done. Seems like a weak god you believe in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a god doesn't want to do doesn't relate to its strength.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

The Story of Creating is just that, a story. It is not meant to be scientifically accurate. So there is no reason why any Catholic should have any disagreement with that. The Catholic faith has accepted the theory of Evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't know about protestants, methodist or any other christian denominations, but the catholic church has acknowledged the factual accuracy of evolution a long time ago. Then again, I suppose most christians on tip.it aren't catholic then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority of Protestants believe in evolution as well, we simply see it as God's way of getting things done. Unfortunately the flamy flamers represent a small proportion of us, as with all things the smallest shout loudest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you're saying a mighty powerful God in which you believe in, who created the heavens and the earth (according to you and your faith) wasn't powerful enough to just "create" humans but had to rely on a natural occurrence to get the job done. Seems like a weak god you believe in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a god doesn't want to do doesn't relate to its strength.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So therefore if he's a Christian (than he obviously believes in Jesus). So if he believes that Jesus came from heavan to die on the cross for us to forgive us for our sins, then therefore he died on the cross also for the monkeys which we evolved from? Or did he die on the cross for the one celled organisms which we originated from? :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and also I'd like to know what his view is on the verse from the bible which says, "we were created in the likeness of God." :? And in your answer (concerning baron8000) take into consideration that, it's a statement, so therefore its not a story, (well to a Christian it isn't).

[wizjany]

I challenge you to fully prove evolution. Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles. :roll:

 

 

 

I challenge you to disprove it then. As far as we know, aside from religious belief, the Earth was created about 5 bilion years ago and humans came to exist less than 100,000 years ago. And Jesus is the prophet of God, not God Himself.

[warri0r45]

 

I challenge you to fully prove evolution. Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles. :roll:

 

 

 

I challenge you to disprove it then. As far as we know, aside from religious belief, the Earth was created about 5 bilion years ago and humans came to exist less than 100,000 years ago. And Jesus is the prophet of God, not God Himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for posting, but I have to remind you that's not what this topic is about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus far there have been only two challangers, one of whom provided two sources which were religously motivated and the other is yet to provide a source for his claim that, seeing as physicists are starting to doubt the contant 'c' as not being so constant, time can be interpreted in different ways and many years can be interpreted as days (or something to that effect :? ). Correct me if I'm wrong anonimu and a source is still required.

[Guest]

 

I challenge you to fully prove evolution. Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles. :roll:

 

 

 

I challenge you to disprove it then. As far as we know, aside from religious belief, the Earth was created about 5 bilion years ago and humans came to exist less than 100,000 years ago. And Jesus is the prophet of God, not God Himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was making a statement rather than a question. I was using it to prove my point that really, there's nothing provable when it comes to a forum situation here. All people are going to do is post links as their best evidence (and there's nothing wrong with that).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles.

That's what I really mean. I what I wrote after that. As I've said before, these topics are useless (especially when it comes to people trying to prove things). We need to agree to disagree.

[warri0r45]

 

 

I challenge you to fully prove evolution. Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles. :roll:

 

 

 

I challenge you to disprove it then. As far as we know, aside from religious belief, the Earth was created about 5 bilion years ago and humans came to exist less than 100,000 years ago. And Jesus is the prophet of God, not God Himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was making a statement rather than a question. I was using it to prove my point that really, there's nothing provable when it comes to a forum situation here. All people are going to do is post links as their best evidence (and there's nothing wrong with that).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles.

That's what I really mean. I what I wrote after that. As I've said before, these topics are useless (especially when it comes to people trying to prove things). We need to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only reason why people won't accept evidence is if they are narrow minded or can't be bothered trying to see things from someone elses perspective because it may upset thier deep seeded beliefs. No one should let belief get in the way of science. It's incredibly narrow minded and counter intuitive. Just becuase you don't like this topic or think evidence is useless here dosen't mean I'm going to concede defeat and just say ok, nevermind about science or trying to find the truth, just believe whatever your parents tell you. Humans are questioning in nature and you shouldn't let a supernatural belief quash that for your whole life. Now keep in mind I don't care what people believe in. Science and religion can and should learn to coexist. Also keep in mind science is not a belief (yes, we've been over the whole subjective truth matter and other philosophical points on science before, there's no need to do it again).

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

Seriously get over it, just because others don't share the same belief as you. You can try all you'll like, but you're just going around in circles.

That's what I really mean. I what I wrote after that. As I've said before, these topics are useless (especially when it comes to people trying to prove things). We need to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I had absolutely solid proof that Australia will completely run out of water in the next 10 years, would you think "that's just your opinion"? You can choose not to believe it, but that doesn't alter the reality you're going to live in in 10 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Things like that can be calculated. It simply doesn't matter if somebody believes "whatever, you're just talking trash". Their belief doesn't cure dryness, so why shouldn't they be educated about the harsh reality they're going to face eventually?