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

prophecyexclaimed, 1/Baseless assertion. Why to evolutionary trees based on morphological characteristics & genetic sequence data agree, then? Why are both generally congruent with the stratigraphy of fossils? Seems to me to be excellent evidence of what you say can't happen, did. Do you have anything other than incredulity & rhetoric to support your claim?2/A lineage that evolves even slightly becomes a "different creature". One that does it a lot becomes a very different creature.3/What fallacies of evolution?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

prophecyexclaimed, Doesn't matter, it's still a different creature relative to an ancestor. It was a small point, but macroevolution creates different creatures via RM&NS. If an animal gets a mutation that no other animal in that lineage get's, it is different, non? Baseless assertion, again. You claimed there was a fallacy. Please show where. Simply wishing it to be so does not make it so. Certainly. The data presented here shows that, on average, as the RCI (Relative Completeness Index) increases, so does the SCI (Stratigraphic Consistency Index). In other words, the better the fossil record for a group under analysis, the better the cladistic & phylogenetic trees match the stratigraphy.How can this be true if evolution hadn't occurred? Yup, see above, the ball is back in your court. I repeat, do you have anything other than incredulity & rhetoric to support your claim?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-21-2003]

prophecyexclaimed, Ill dispatch the lot by destroying your premise, the bible is indicative of reality. Moses allegedly wrote Genesis, there is no independent evidence that he 1/ existed, & 2/ was cheek to cheek with God in order to be able to write authoratitively. 3/ There is no valid evidence of God, either. As such, any argument based on Genesis is an appeal to an anonymous authority, this is a flaw that renders your argument without the requisite level of logical support.Secondly, your cite provides no evidence (no data), just rhetoric, & thirdly, you provide no argument that is supported by your cite, in contravention of forum guidelines. Please don't argue by footnote.Do you have any evidence that the diversity of life we see today, & in the past was due to creation? Such evidence must be consistent with the extant body of knowledge.I have provided you with evidence that shows that the fossil record is patchy, yet when the sampling does improve, phylogenies are more likely to match the stratigraphy of the fossil record. This is an excellent evidence of evolution.Can creationism account for this? Because as far as I can see this directly contradicts both biblical biological creation AND the flood. Not a good start! 1/ is logically flawed. 2/ The biblical accounts are actually contradicted by science, see Bentons data. 3/ Fair enough, but that cuts both ways. 4/ You have already fallen foul of this, not I. I have provided evidence consistent with all other bodies of knowledge that provide corroborating evidence of evolution, you have not provided the same for a biblical creation 5/ Again, logical flaw, see above.So, I repeat:1/ Do you have anything other than rhetoric & dogma that would support biblical creation?2/ Where is the fallacy in evolutionary theory?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Zealot, The premise is flawed logically.You may hypothesise that Genesis is true, but you can only reach that conclusion via evidence (premises). That Genesis is the truth could be a premise, depends who you're arguing with, but at the end of the day a premise has to be valid itself, if the inferences & conclusions you make from it are going to be valid.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-21-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 08-21-2003]

prophecyexclaimed, No, it ISN'T a matter of faith. You have made unsupported claims, that remain unsupported. There is therefore no obligation to accept your position whatsoever. What sort of debate would it be where the only requirement for the protagonists is to simply prosetylise their beliefs? This is why evidence is so important (I can't believe I''m having to labour this point), & it's also why logic is so important (ditto).Who has the stronger position, someone who's argument is evidentially supported, & that that evidence directly contradicts his/hers opponents position, when the opponent only has an unsupported faith that his argument is correct, despite it flying in the face of said evidence?We both know you couldn't give a rats arse for evidence. You believe what you want in spite of it, not because of it. You don't even meet the extremely low standards set by your own cite.Any member of any religion could have done what you just did, with exactly the same level of support (ie. none), why don't you have "faith" in them?When I lose an argument (& I do) I make damn sure it doesn't happen again. I factor the new information into my worldview. The difference with creationists is that they will get stuffed out of sight with every argument they make, yet NEVER change their opinion. As such they are doomed to play the part of the fool, starving in a land of informational plenty. You don't know what a fallacy is, do you?. You are also factually incorrect, perhaps the most serious fallacy of all to commit. There is evidence of all the things you say there is no evidence for. Vertebrate phylogeny based on morphology, there is also the molecular data, & the fossil data corroborates both. Sarcopterygian fishes to basal tetrapods to basal amniotes, to mammals to primates, hominoids, hominids, & finally us.Do you not think there is a dichotomy in your thinking when you think faith is greater than evidence, yet you claim I have only faith in evolution, yet somehow my argument is still qualatitively inferior to yours?I have now shown you that molecular & cladistic evolutionary trees are tested by statigraphy, & that includes the vertebrate relationships from fish to humans. Is this just coincidence to you? If you put your hand in a fire & got burnt, would you not at least suspect the flame? It matters not, the vast wealth of corroborating evidence of which I have only shown you a snippet makes the question; did evolution occur? Akin to arguing whether the sun rises in the east. That evolution occurred is a perfectly valid, & highly tested inference based on the data.So, for the umpteenth time, do you have any reason to suspect that evoluionary theory is fallacious? When I say fallacious, I mean REALLY fallacious, not something you have trouble accepting. Here's another brief list of some logical fallacies to give you an idea. Now you know what a logical fallacy is, what do you think the ToE is in violatition of?And for the umpteenth time, do you have any evidence that creation occurred that is consistent with the current body of knowledge?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

prophecyexclaimed, What do you think Bentons study testing phylogenies against stratigraphy was, for chrissakes? You were part of that exchange, weren't you?Are we at the stage where you have donned your evidence sensitive sunglasses, put your fingers in your ears & are going, "lalalalalalalalala", already?I would love to be a guilty murderer with you guys on the jury. All the evidence points to my guilt, yet you let me off claiming there was none. Amazing!Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Zealot, Nope, logic dictates it. I don't make the rules. It is a silly position to put yourself in, isn't it? But if there's no evidence, there is no reason to hold your faith. That's why I don't go around having faith in things that I have no evidence for. Faith is not self evident.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

prophecyexclaimed, I have shown you that morphologically derived phylogenies are tested against stratigraphy - How is this not useful?I have shown you that molecularly derived phylogenies are tested against stratigraphy - How is this not useful?I have shown that the evidence based on morphology & molecules shows the same pattern of relationships - How is this not useful?If evolution were not indicative of reality, I would not be able to do the above, now, would I?The truth is, you don't understand the evidence. Prove me wrong, explain all of the above in a non-evolutionary context. Your answer must be consistent with the current body of knowledge. I'll be waiting a VERY long time, won't I? How is it that evolutionary trees better match stratigraphy when the fossil record improves? Stochastically speaking, why do they match it at all?Statisticians apply what is called a "null-hypothesis" to their tests. This is what they would expect the data to show if what they suspected was true, wasn't. Let's have a look.1/ If phylogenies were simply random "noise", rather than reflecting the true relationships of various taxa, then they wouldn't be congruent with each other. They are. The null-hypothesis is not observed, the evolutionary expectation is.2/ If the fossil record weren't the result of evolution, then phylogenies wouldn't match the stratigraphy except for a few chance congruences. There is approximately a (SCI)75% congruence, falsifying our null-hypothesis. Bear in mind that this is the result of over 1,000 studies.3/ If our null-hypothesis is true, then the RCI (quality of the fossil record in question) value should have no impact on the SCI (stratigraphic consistency index). But it does. On average, the higher the RCI goes, the higher SCI values we get.In short, if chance alone were at work, we should see specific results, but we don't see the results predicted by the null-hypthesis. Instead we see results that you would expect if evolution were indicative of reality.Do you understand this?The null-hypothesis is what we would expect if creation were true, we don't observe the null-hypothesis, though, we only see what we would expect if evolution were indicative of reality. Therefore, the biblical account of the creation of life is contradicted by evidence, & evolution is vindicated.Now, back to your text, quoted above. I HAVE provided evidence, you haven't, however. It's that simple. My position is evidentially supported, yours isn't. And for the record, there are shelf miles of evidence in favour of evolution, in a web forum like this it is only possible to scratch the surface.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Zealot, I am not required to accept or refute any mathematical straw man of evolution in order to show that an argument based on Genesis is logically flawed. Are you moving the goalposts? You ARE moving the goalposts!Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

prophecyexclaimed, Isn't it just!Debate for you, PE, is simply asserting what you believe to be true, sadly you don't care that your argument is 1/ logically invalid, 2/ is not supported by evidence, & 3/ is actually contradicted by evidence. Your position could not be weaker. No one is obliged to accept such a thing, so nobody does. Can't you see why not? I'm asking myself why you are getting so frustrated?If you want to change someones mind you'll need a logically valid argument supported by, & not contradicted by evidence. Why is this so difficult to understand? Would you be happy to be convicted on the strength of a case that was logically invalid, had no evidence in support of it, when all the available evidence points to someone else having committed the crime? You can't have it both ways, you actually adhere to the same standards as everyone else in all other areas of your life whether you realise it or not, why the double standard when it comes to evolution & origins?I understand that it is FAITH for you, but you are hiding behind it. You are just waving away the evidence & claiming you have faith that something else occurred, as if that should somehow give me pause for thought. Science is not a post-modernist exercise where all ideas have equal credibility. If it has evidence for it, & none against it, then it is qualatitively better than one that has no evidence, which is again better than one that is contradicted by evidence. Evolution is at the "very well supported indeed" end of the scale, whilst biblical origins is at the "not at all supported, plus a rake of contradictory evidence" end. Just hand waving & shouting "it's my faith" impresses no one, & the fact is, when it's another religion doing that you manage to see how weak such a thing is.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-22-2003]

Zealot, No I didn't. I claimed any argument based upon Genesis was logically flawed, not false. Such an argument is reduced to believing in fairies, unicorns etc because it lacks the required level of support. You never demonstrated anything, I, like PaulK & Mammuthus above, know this is a straw man based on abiogenesis, & not evolution. But hit us with it anyway. I never said knowledge isn't infallible. But the only way you are going to find out about the world is by forming a logically valid hypothesis that is testable. Using Genesis to do this introduces a logical flaw that all conclusions will be reduced to. Along the bar near the top, forum Nav, then edit profile.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

But they use Genesis as a filter for what science thewy will & won't accept. This sub-thread was a result of Ken Ham's way of thinking, remember? In any case, & for the thirds time, I am saying that the use of Genesis as a premise in an argument/hypothesis is flawed on logical grounds, nothing more, nothing less. Supporting an argument from it is equally flawed. I predicted you would make a straw man, that is misrepresent another argument in order to falsify it, in fact you made a complete non-sequitur. There is nothing in your cite that falsifies evolution on mathematical grounds.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Zealot, Nonsense. I can construct a logical argument supported by evidence to "show" that both evolution & the BB are indicative of reality, I am in no way obliged or required to filter out data that doesn't fit. Therefore, I am not using the BB & evolution as a "knowledge filter". Creationists cannot construct a logical argument to support creation using Genesis, nor can they support it with evidence.There's only one side with their blinkers on, & it's not the evo's. Their statements are irrelevant to the matter in hand!You claimed to be able to mathematically falsify evolution, & all you do is post an irrelevant website about chaos theory with no supporting argument. You have not supported your claim.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Dan, Or you have something much more massive than the earth over your head, in which case closing your eyes may be a better strategy than looking up......Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Bugger.