Give me proof of your argument.

 

Give me proof of yours

 

Dave, I have a question for you.

Do you believe that humans evolved from less intelligent beings?

 

I do.

I base that belief on the evidence that's been presented to me by others presumably more knowledgable than myself on the subject. I've had a fair amount of scientific education, (biology, chemistry, physics) and that belief fits into that structure better than anything else anybody has put out there. Genetic mutation and changes in species over the course of time are well documented enough to lend the idea some credibility, IMO.

 

prove to me carbon dating is false and i'll prove to you the bible is real h:

by acknowledging the reality of carbon dating and its effectiveness you also in a way disprove the bible. just saying

 

Here's the idea I was thinking of:

There are two species of squirrels that live on the North rim and the South rim of the Grand Canyon. Genetic testing shows that they both evolved from a common ancenstor and the physical separation caused by the canyon itself has allowed each species to evolve separately enough that they can no longer interbreed with eachother, even though they are no more than a few miles apart. That seems like pretty sound evidence for the idea that living creatures change over time in the face of the forces of nature. There are no doubt hundreds more, but that's the one that popped into my mind. Is it proof? Probably not, but it's still pretty good evidence.

 

Carbon dating doesn't really push much into disproving theism. The half life and other physical characteristics of Carbon used for Carbon dating drastically limits the time span as to which it can accurately date.

Now, potassium dating is another thing.

 

I'm going to side with archaeology and paleontology findings that seem to debunk religions, namely christianity.

There have been intact fossils that have been dated (K+ and Li+ for jesse ) that date accurately back thirty million or more years. There have been series of fossils and biological findings time periods apart that show slow, physical adaptations for darwinian fitness cross referenced with competition for sources of nutrition etc. According to the bible, there were no whales thirty million years ago. Ice encrusted and 95%+ preserved fossils say otherwise.

And don't get me started on Hominidae structures that have been uncovered.

I'm a Junior Organismal Biology major (pre-med) currently taking evolutionary plant and fungal biology, as well as a Christian. Science ftw.

 

My next question to you is how do you address someone of a different skin color? Do you consider yourself as being white that they are less superior because they have not evolved as far away from the original species originator?

I do not acknowledge that Carbon-14 dating is an exact science nor is the stability of Carbon in the atmosphere of the earth, which is one of the major assumptions of Carbon Dating. Radiometric dating has many, many assumptions that are made that are kindly overlooked to prove a point.

Also, in order to have an exact count of Carbon-14 (not an assumption) of what the subject had when it died, you would have to be there. Otherwise, it is belief by faith on assumptions.

So, I am not real sure how this proves evolution. In the genome there are no less than around 150 errors from two parents to a child. Over a couple hundred generations, that is a lot of errors piling up, which to me seems possible.

And I don't want to confuse adaptation with evolution. Adaptation to the environment has been proving, but even in the Origin of Species, Darwin noted the birds beaks going back to original states when conditions returned to the original conditions he witnessed.

I am sure I am going to ruffle your feathers when I make this next statement, however I do believe that it needs said. You say that you are a Christian, but do not believe that the beginning of the Bible is correct, how do you know that the New Testament, which seems to be the basis of your faith, is correct. If you don't believe the beginning of the book, then why would you choose to believe the end of it?

 

With my beliefs and education already somewhat clashing, you'd pretty much have to shoot my dog in front of me holding the bible while urinating on it to ruffle my feathers.

Here's the quick answer, as I'm doing some last minute review for my biology midterm.

In evolution and creationism, there seems to be a thick black line that has been drawn between the two. Evolution answers certain criteria that religion can't, and vice versa. I believe that opting out of even considering both can be harmonious is ignorant in its own right.

My freshman year of college I read a research study about the human genome project in Europe. I found another book by the same author that was about science and theism living in the same house. I really clicked with me. I grew up as a non science believing christian...and now that I am somewhat of a scientist, things have pushed the reality of my beliefs.

Long story short; I have my own interpretation of the bible. You see, the Koran is a book of rules and statements. In my opinion, the Bible is a book that gives the reader the option to form his or her own opinion and relative ideals.