Google
 

Prove evolution false and win a Nobel Prize!

05/31/07

Prove evolution false and win a Nobel Prize!

Permalink 11:42:16 am, Categories: Theory and Theosophical, Everything Else, 276 words

Yup folks, sorry to bring this up again, but the simple folk on the Internet need a bit of a clue. While I am sure a lot of you think your pastor knows more about life than Dawkins, us us in the real world actually need to know the truth. Now I know if your pastor has a child with his sister he may deny the theory of evolution, but luckily the pastors work is to promote a cult that glorifies death and not to figure out how to keep life alive. Otherwise we would all be stuffed.

Evolution is pretty simple.. here it is; evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation.

The theory of evolution explains how this happens through different mechanics such as mutation, gene drift, speciation and others.

So this is a challenge to all those religious folk there to prove science and evolution wrong. If you can prove evolution wrong I will personally with every possible resource available to me, get you nominated for a Nobel Prize in science... because honestly, thats the least you deserve if you can prove evolution wrong.

So preachers, priests, domines, clerics, rabbi`s, pastors and other people of the fraud, sorry I mean cloth, who deny evolution are welcome to "put their money where their mouth is.". Lets see if they have the ability to be honest.

For those of you who do not want to prove it because you see no value in the Nobel Prize, think of the large amount of cash you get with it. Im sure your mega-church could use the money to buy another SUV.

Permalink 6 comments

Comments:

Comment from: Roelof [Visitor]
I am not about to prove evolution false. What I am going to do is to explain why I don’t believe in creationism, and why believing in evolution does not make Christianity less believable for me, but more. I know this is not what the post is about, but the post seems to imply that if you believe in evolution you cannot be a Christian.

As I understand it Genesis was written in the Babylonian period. This was a time when the Israelites where taken from their homeland to work for the Babylon empire. They had just lost a war, a hard fact to swallow when they believed their God was the one God who would protect them. In this foreign environment (I imagine with Babylonians mocking them) Genesis was written. It is a poem deliberately opposing the very beliefs of the Babylonian empire, especially the prevalent creation myth of the time the “Enuma Elish”. If you compare Genesis to the Elish, you can see it opposes it almost point for point. The Israelites were saying, our God is the real God, and we believe this even when we are here defeated in Babylon.

If this is the fact why don’t all churches believe this? I don’t know. I am an engineer, I don’t have the theological background to argue the case.

I think the problem for many churches is the fact that if they uphold the figurative or poetic interpretation of things like the creation myth, they open the door for many other things (if not all things) in the bible to be written of as simply parables, lessons to teach you something. For me this is a justifiable fear – I believe the Bible is the word of God, not just a moral guideline to live your life by.

So I believe in evolution. A God-inspired evolution. And the world as God’s creation is even more beautiful for me knowing that every part of it works in a logical way, even if you look at molecule level. As I said, I’m an engineer. And for me at least science does not oppose religion – my soul was not created by evolution, and the big bang had to be started my Someone!
Permalink 06/01/07 @ 15:31
Comment from: pb [Member]
I agree with most of your post. As Collins (Christian genome specialist who debated recently with Dawkins) said, "Denying evolution makes faith look foolish". Its the fools I tend to concentrate on. My brother is a pastor my mother a born again Christian and my dad is old school Catholic... not one of them would try make their faith look foolish and I never question their beliefs, but then again, they do not practice foolish beliefs.

Thank you for your post.
Permalink 06/01/07 @ 15:43
Comment from: Carl Kirstein [Visitor]
One of the requirements of a theory (for it to be considered as science) is that you must be able to prove it false. Neither Evolution, nor Creationism can be proven false... therefore neither is science (considering that science is "the body of knowlegde and method of acquiring such knowledge through the scientific method" Karl Popper)
Permalink 06/12/07 @ 15:43
Comment from: Carl Kirstein [Visitor]
PS. Proove Creationism wrong (by presenting facts that cannot be disputed beyond a reasonable doubt) and I'll do the same for you (Nobel Prize).
;o)
Permalink 06/12/07 @ 15:53
Comment from: pb [Member]
Hi there Carl, thank you for responding. I will respond to your first post point by point:

One of the requirements of a theory (for it to be considered as science) is that you must be able to prove it false.

Thats false. If you can prove a theory wrong its not a valid theory. For instance, if you found a mammal bone in rock formed 20 million years ago it would destroy the entire theory of evolution. So no, a theory will no longer be a theory if you can prove it wrong.

Neither Evolution, nor Creationism can be proven false... therefore neither is science

Wrong again there mate. Firstly the theory of evolution is a real life honest to God scientific theory. Creationism is not a theory (however if you can point me in the direction of the theory of creation I would be happy to view it). Creationism (as you understand it in the Christian context) is not science or a valid scientific theory.

And just so you know what science is:

"Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by experiment. "

Permalink 06/12/07 @ 16:16
Comment from: pb [Member]
PS. Proove Creationism wrong (by presenting facts that cannot be disputed beyond a reasonable doubt) and I'll do the same for you (Nobel Prize).
;o)


Okay since I could find no official scientific Theory of Creationism I am going to have to assume you are referring to one of many of the worlds creationist beliefs and more specifically the Christian creationist story in Genesis.

You were then very generous to me and gave me the option of "Reasonable doubt", so I am grateful for that.

Okay, lets look at the problems I have with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Day one. God creates the heaven and the earth, and then light. In that order. However he does not create the stars which create both planets and light until day four. How could there be an "Evening" and a "Morning" if there was no sun? However, we will get more onto that later.

Day two. God creates something called a "firmament" which he calls "heaven" Must be a different heaven to day 1. Also on day two God removes roughly 30% of the worlds water to... somewhere else and creates land.

Day three God creates plants and stuff. Somehow they avoid freezing instantly to death in the sub zero climate, and somehow they are able to photosynthesize without the sun.

I don't know about you, but I am pretty sure the sun came before the plants. I believe that is a very reasonable deduction.

Day four. God sends some heaven to create the sun and moon and other solar bodies. However he says it with the phrase, "let them be for signs". I thought astrology was a big no no in Christian tradition?

Day five. God then creates all the animals in one day... though he later regretted some of his choices and anhiliated the dinosaurs.

Day six. Us.

Day seven. God, an omnipotent entity.... needs to rest.

There is another version of creation in Genesis as I am sure you well know that has a slightly different storyline but I think this is enough. However I don't know if this is what you were referring to when you meant creationism. If there is an official scientific theory you can point me in the direction of?



Permalink 06/12/07 @ 19:47

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

pickledbushman.com

My status

Contact Me

wtf is wrong with all you people?

 << <February 2012> >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29      

Search

Categories

pickledbushman.com

Archives

Linkblog

leet software

leet sites

Who's Online?

Account

Sponsor


Linkage

ANTOWAN
CARLSPIES
FMTECH
SHUTTLEWORTH
SHOPBOT.CO.NZ
IAN FRASER
JHBLIVE.COM
NEWZ
ANTITRUST
HELLKOM
TAG
KARMIC SANGOMA
BEENZ

Syndicate this blog

powered by
B2/Evolution

I shmaak SA Blogs, sorted with Amatomu.com

Afrigator

Static Page 1
Static Page 2

Sponsor


Valid XHTML || Valid CSS || Valid RSS || Valid Atom