And please add a source, if possible. This is a debate, after-all.
And please only put real answers to my question, I know a lot of people put a lot of pointless religious propoganda in this category.
2006-09-20 14:57:51 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Obtain a Teflon-coated spatula.
Has to be Teflon coated.
Proceed to spank your friend on a bare butt cheek until it's good and red.
Announce, "There. You look just like the Baboon you theoretically came from."
:>
Hey. You said it was for-fun....
2006-09-20 15:04:13 · answer #1 · answered by NickofTyme 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why would you debate just "for-fun" anyway.
The only way to prove it is to be totally set in it refusing to see anything that would so dispose any other thinking process to occur, to formulate your answers to only a preset conditioning, and to accept no other answers as truth but what bolsters your own opinions. - oh but that's what you say Christians do with Creationism - same with evolution and atheism! You can't have it both ways. Unless you are God - oops wait you don't believe in Him! So you can't believe that you are him, right? Oh and since you don't believe at all - then how could you evolve into something that you don't believe in? Which is another paradox all its own. Oh but you don't have a way to prove thats why your asking for someone else to do your thinking for you - Oh excuse me that's what you say about Christians doing that too. Hmm I wonder if you will get your proof in here or not - well since you didn't read to the end of this message guess you wont get it either. I thought not.
2006-09-20 22:09:08 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the book of Genesis is specifically explains that God created all the animals in the sea and air and land in different days. That proves against evolution biblically. Now, scientifically...
1) Where has macroevolution ever been observed? If an animals leg evolved into a wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg before it became a good wing? What about the arm, and the face, and the digestice track?
2) If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossols? There's not just a "missing link" There a ten-mile long chain of missing link from only one stage to the next.
3) How could the first living cell begin?
4) Which came first: DNA, or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
5) The most scientific dating outbrakes and techniques state that the earth and the universe are young.
Also, don't get macroevolution (From monkey to human) confused with the proven theory, microevolution (From Dog to golden retriever, and to German Shepard, and the terrier, etc.)
2006-09-20 22:03:15 · answer #3 · answered by Lord_French_Fry 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
there is NOTHING scientifically proven about evolution. the only thing that keeps it alive is a need to reject the alternative. If you really research and use common sense and reason- there is NO way you can honestly tell me that evolution is a reasonable theory:
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:
http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...
here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :
Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).
Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).
What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).
"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com
The fact is there is nothing here that was not created, planned with a purpose in mind. Is there anything on this earth- not natural that just came together on its own. You can put pieces of 'stuff' in a box and put whatever conditions you choose and without a purpose and planning for that purpose, you won't get anything useful. I have yet to see anyone show matter being created out of nothing, or one species evolving into another or any proof of that happening. this world works in a clockwork type order , there is precision and purpose to everything you see - you cannot have purpose without a plan and you cannot have a plan without a planner- there is nothing that can disprove intelligent design. Period!
2006-09-20 22:09:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Kinda depends on what you expect for proof. We have many indications that evolution occurs and have observed it in experiments.
Proving atheism is not possible, because it is proving the absence of a god (a negative). Athiests believe there is no god usually because of Occams razor. Since there is no indication in the world that there is a god, and since positing a god involves more complexity than positing a universe with basic physical laws, Athiests like myself have concluded that there is no god.
FYI, Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Agnosticism is the statement that someone doesn't know one way or another. Belief is not proof, it is simply the conclusion that there isn't a god. Agnostics haven't concluded it one way or another.
2006-09-20 22:08:49 · answer #5 · answered by Thomas C 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think atheism and fundamentalism are opposite sides of the same coin: it's all about dealing with concepts of god (rejecting and accepting) and then defining the self by a label. So ... it's one thing to prove that fundamentalist concepts of god are untrue (just show how the gods are similar in that they are ego projections, that unconditional love is incongruous with the predator/prey model, etc.). As far as evolution, you first need to make sure that your friend understands that a scientific theory is completely different from a layman's use of the word. Then, go into talk.origins and you'll see a boatload of information.
2006-09-20 22:04:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the bible can't even seem to agree with itself, maybe thats a test of ones faith, but i would like to think that a god that wants me to follow him would be a little more clear. why, jesus even claims to teach in parables because they are easier for people to understand but then berates his disciples when they don't understand what he is saying. thats before even getting to the thousands of years the bible has been interpreted over and over again and scholars still can't agree on its meanings. this however does not 100% prove that atheism is correct or true or right, it can still turn out that their is a god, but that the bible has little to do with him or her....maybe he is a swordfish growing madder and madder that everyone keeps reading this bible thing and not walking around with pointy hats.
but if you solve this age old question let us know, even if it means someone will post "this is not a question" it will be worth it.
2006-09-20 22:09:36 · answer #7 · answered by madisonsuicide 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it baffles me that you athiest with your so called intellectualism try so hard to believe that life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere. Intead of regarding yourself as spearheads of Gods' ever-advancing Creation, you athiest choose to believe that your human intelligence is the last word, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end of all. Rather vain of you.
You athiest look at human defects of people and use certain peoples shortcomings as a basis of wholesale condemnation. You talk of intolerance..while you are intolerant yourselves. You have missed the reality and the beauty of the forest because you have been diverted by the ugliness of some of its trees. You never gave the spiritual side of life a fair hearing...and contempt prior to investigation is a true shame.
2006-09-20 22:09:13 · answer #8 · answered by chris e 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Read books by Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming in all fields of science, from cosmology to astronomy to geology to biology to anthropology and more.
The evidence against evolution is completely non-existent. Creationism is a fraud, "creation science" is an oxymoron, and the Biblical genesis story is pure mythology.
2006-09-20 22:01:16 · answer #9 · answered by Jim 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
First of all, those are two different issues. One does not have to be an Atheist to believe in evolution.
2006-09-20 22:01:24 · answer #10 · answered by opjames 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Remember you can't prove a negative, so you can never totally prove Atheism (but you can disprove Christianity). But you can prove Evolution. Try these:
2006-09-20 22:03:27 · answer #11 · answered by adphllps 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋