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

You may think that, but all you have to do to prove us wrong is present evidence we can't explain through evolution. It's really that easy. Yeah, I do know what that's like. The thing is you don't have to immediately respond. If you're being overwhelmed, take your time. And a lot of the time we're saying the same thing, in different ways, so you don't have to directly respond to each one of us, all the time. If we really, really want a direct answer to a straight question we'll point that out.Just a thought, if you're reading this: There would have had to have been a sea, in order to have sea creatures, wouldn't there? Like you said 90 some percent of fossils are marine fossils. If there were no seas where did those organisms live?

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]

Since this seemed to get lost in all the chatter...a very good post and point by Zealot.cheers,
M

...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.

I was just trying to compliment Zealot for at least encouraging pe to drop the closed eyes fingers in ears approach to everything being said to him...

Zealot responds to Prophecyexclaimed:

quote:

---

Evolutionists do have proof that there are mutations and that natural selection occurs. We can accept that and still believe God created it all.

---

You're free to 'believe' anything you want. It's just that the mutation/selection process has plenty of evidential support and "God Created It All" has nothing to do with science. Random mutation and natural selection are mechanistic processes and do not appear to be guided by any purpose or intention.

quote:

---

God would not have created Man and animal to be simple creatures, he made us able to adapt to our environment.

---

I assume God realizes you've placed this restriction on His creative power. Just how do you know what God would or would not do?

quote:

---

the real question is "Is random mutation and natural selection" the reason we went from nothing to life ?

---

That's not the real question at all. Random mutation and natural selection allow life forms to adapt to environments, and this is the process that has led to the diversity of life on Earth. If you accept RMNS, you accept evolution.

quote:

---

We however do not believe that a rat mutated into a bat, or that a some spider spins a perfect web, because they are genetically programmed to do so.

---

So you don't 'believe' that rats and bats are rodents, and therefore share a very recent common ancestor? Rats and bats were 'created' separately and specially? Why, may I ask, do you 'believe' a spider spins a web in the first place?I appreciate your telling Prophecy to learn about evolutionary theory before he judges it. However, I think you're under the impression that Darwin's theory somehow deals with religion, and I disagree. The processes responsible for the diversity of life on Earth do not require supernatural intervention, but the existence of God is beyond the ability of science to judge.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

Ok, lets try understand the flow of the discussion re Genesis.You claimed Genesis to be false because of logic. Seeing as you will only respond to logic, I brought up the science of mathematics (a rather logical science , perhaps the most logical) to point to the unlikelyhood of Evolution occuring from 'nothing' some 3 1/2 Billion years ago. If you choose to ignore that science, well then I dont think you can back up your arguments with logic anymore. It's because you're not shooting straight. I mentioned Hawking's example of a way that science and Mr Hawking's knowlege is not infallable.On a sidenote, seriously is there any way to change your password ?cheers

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)

quote:

---

Ok, lets try understand the flow of the discussion re Genesis.

​

You claimed Genesis to be false because of logic. Seeing as you will only respond to logic, I brought up the science of mathematics (a rather logical science , perhaps the most logical) to point to the unlikelyhood of Evolution occuring from 'nothing' some 3 1/2 Billion years ago. If you choose to ignore that science, well then I dont think you can back up your arguments with logic anymore.

---

Though mark24 is probably already typing his response I will jump in here quickly to point out one of the big mistakes you have just made. You have confused abiogenesis with evolution. The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life from non-life but rather all changes that happened after life appeared...this is a common mistake I have seen from the creationist side on this and other forums.

{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}Don't be so credulous. This is from the article: First, this gets the title wrong. It's A Brief History of Time.Second, Hawking's book is written at the layperson level - there is only one equation that I can recall, it appears in the introduction, and it isn't directly related to black hole evaporation: E=mc²Third, Hawking's book is qualitative and descriptive, not quantitative. It contains no data to compare to.The article goes on to say: If true it is easily verified - I have a meeting in five minutes, perhaps someone can check if Cao and his unnamed professor have published anything. I doubt it. Hawking is so famous that a legitimate challenge to his theory would be plastered all over the media.--Percy[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 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."

Hi MrHambre I believe otherwise. When something happens for which there is no explanation , it is deemed random, which happens to be at the very core of evolution.Matthew 10 - 29-30 "29 Not even a sparrow, worth only half a penny, can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it. 30 And the very hairs on your head are all numbered. 31 So don't be afraid; you are more valuable to him than a whole flock of sparrows." Could God create a simple world yes, but He clearly didn't though. I kinda just have to look around me at the complexities of even the tiniest tick. No I think the vital difference is that you believe Man to evolve from a Primordial pool and at that 'randomly'. Mathematicians dont support that premise either, so its not really 'blind faith' to believe in a creator.2 Peter 3:8 "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. "How God created the world and the universe really is of very little concern to my Faith. I think you see God on a small scale and you dont quite comprehend His power. God's being cannot be explained by philosophy or science. Job, God's prophet tried, but failed. God is just too much for us to understand. When not even a man that close to God can understand Him, how can someone that doesn't even believe in Him ? God even amazes the angels! No I dont (atleast not randomly). If God chose to to create a rat first and then add on the wings, heck who am I to argue, whether it was random, I highly doubdt
YesTo catch its prey. That it manages to produce such a perfect mathematical design for a web, points to a superior designer, not a random gene mutating. I don't doubdt that Darwin was an athiest. His marriage to his first cousin (odd really considering his knowledge) probably didn't sit too well with with Christians in those days, so yes, I doubdt he wanted to point to a creator. I posted to prophecy as he would be able to get a better understanding of God's work, by listening to evolutionists. When he leaves this forum and talks to someone else regarding evolution, he will have a better understanding.If we cant all learn from each other, what is the point of discussing anything ?cheers

I dont think anyone used Genesis as 'scientific proof', just as Darwins origin of the species is not 'scientific proof'. Genesis also isn't logically flawed, as it makes sense if you understand the Bible. Perhaps we can settle on saying it isn't 'Scientific' ? I dont see any straw men. 403 Forbidden "Albert Einstein, although one of the founders of quantum theory, was never reconciled to the idea of a non-deterministic universe. In a letter to the physicist Neils Bohr, he insisted that "God does not play dice."You can choose to call anything I say 'straw men'. It is the same as Creationist's saying evolutionists 'falsify' evidence. How is the idea of Genesis any different from the idea of 'Big Bang' and 'Primordial Pool' ? Both are hypothesis. Again, no one is saying this is a fact because Genesis said it is. Atleast not from a scientific perspective. We're saying Genesis is a fact, now lets find some data to point towards it.Sidenote, seriously thanks for the password thing !cheers

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."