$50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.

OK, what is this spiritual part of evolution that you claim to have seen ?If you're following typical creationist form it's something you've invented rather than admoit that you could be wrong.

OK, I read that link.What it says is that creationism is based on assuming that a literalistic interpretation of the Bible is correct and that all the evidence must be interpreted on that basis.It tacitly admits that without that assumption the evidence is against creationism:"Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts."In other words it implicitly admits that creationism is apologetics for a religious dogma and that it is opposed to science.

...Except for the serious error of assuming that evolution is believed to completely explain the origin of life.Mustation and natural selection require replicators. Everything before the first replicators must be explaiend by other processes.

OK, I'm still pretty good at probabilities, so show me this mathematical proof that evolution is so unlikely.(You may treat that as a rhetorical question since I know full well that you cannot.)And for now I would not trust that report from China, either. Not until it has undergone a full review. All we have is a confused media report that is probably less than entirely accurate (there isn't much mathematics in _A Brief History of Time_ for a start)

You posted a link to a page of Marxist philosophy - that doesn't evne touch on the subject you were supposed to be discussing and then claim that it is the work of "well respected scientists and mathematicians" ?And since you beleive Hoyle so implicitly (in subjects where he was NOT an expert) I suppose you also accept his view that Christianity is the product of a virus from space ?

You posted an IRRELEVANT quote from Einstein.And since you still seem to beleive that Hoyle's opinions should be accepted jsut because they come from Hoyle, I'll take it that you agree that Christianity is the product of a virus from space. After all if you rejected that you would be the one ignoring Hoyle (I don't - I *know* that his calculations don't give the probability of life forming naturally on Earth).

Apart from the fact that 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't say "literally true" (think about the Parables) what if 2 Tim 3:16 is one of the bits that happens to be false ?

Walt Brown DOES refuse to debate.Joe Meert sent in a signed copy of Walt Brown's form and Walt Brown refused to follow the procedures as written at the time.Walt Brown's staff have acknowledged that the form was received.

No, Joe signed the agreement - AS THE PAGE YOU LINK TO EXPLICITLY SAYS, invoking the clause that allowed amendments to be made if the chosen editor for the debate agreed.Joe Meert agreed to abide by the editor's decision. Walt Brown refused to even consider submitting it to the editor.The only question is whether the editor was purely limited to procedural matters. No such limit was present in the document signed by Joe Meert which stated :" [INITIAL IF APPROPRIATE] I wish to propose a modification to the above conditions. However, I am willing to have the editor decide the matter after my opponent and I have presented our positions. I will abide by this ruling and participate in the written debate. My suggested changes and their justification are listed below."Just to be clear Condition 4 stated :
"The debate will consist of scientific evidence and the logical inferences from that evidence. Religious ideas and beliefs, while possibly correct, will not be allowed. The editor will strike such ideas from the record..."There is nothing in the clause invoked by Joe Meert which states that condition 4 may not be modified.Walt BrownThe debate agreement as it was when Joe Meert accepted is at:
http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/debate.htmlI can personally verify that the relevant sections are correct since I checked when I first found the page, before Walt Brown changed the agreement

The PROBLEM is that Brown refuses to honour the agreement.Joe Meert is NOT insisting on changing the debate topic. All he wants is that the EDITOR should decide on the relevance of some additional information. If the ruling goes against him then Joe Meert will still debate - that is what the agreement that he signed says. But Walt Brown won't allow it to go to the editor. He says that he didn't mean what he wrote and that therefore he shouldn't be held to the agreement.

Joe Meert did not try to change the subject to theology.The facts are simple. Joe Meert signed up for the debate and Walt Brown refuses to honour the agreement.Walt Brown refuses to debate.