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

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]

quote:

---

That's the problem with books that man has devised. They change, they aren't reliable. But God made my textbook and he is reliable, not man. Can you put your trust fully in any man? No, not really.

---

So, are you saying that the idea of learning new things and improving our understanding of the physical world is a bad thing?I think you are faulting science for not having "ulitimate truth" in a philosophical sense. The thing is, science has never claimed to have any kind of "ultimate truth". It does not proscribe how one should behave WRT morals or ethics.Science is a methodology which is wonderfully effective and powerful for figuring out how the physical world works.You do realize that by rejecting Biology, you must also reject most of modern life science, don't you?Tell me, do you get vaccinations?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-21-2003]

Or maybe your jumping to conclusions, I think hes saying that man can not be trusted like God can. And I think when it comes down to it I would trust the Bible over any other book, I dont think hes saying that "dont trust science!" I think hes merely stating that his faith belongs with God not with another mans. Hes in no way (from what his reply was) condemning science.------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewisholla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

quote:

---

Or maybe your jumping to conclusions, I think hes saying that man can not be trusted like God can.

---

Funny, from his posts I have been getting the distinct impression that he thinks that everything in the Bible is factually true and modern Biology and Physics are false.In fact, I think he's pretty much said that.

quote:

---

And I think when it comes down to it I would trust the Bible over any other book,

---

OK, let's imagine you are an engineer at NASA.Your job is to help design a spacecraft to send out of the Earth's orbit to go study Saturn.What part of the Bible is going to be helpful to you, the part about the firmament or the part about the waters above the firmament?Or, would you rather use those man-made books dealing with physics, aerodynamics, materials science, and propulsion?

quote:

---

I dont think hes saying that "dont trust science!" I think hes merely stating that his faith belongs with God not with another mans.
Hes in no way (from what his reply was) condemning science.

---

Again, I think the opposite is quite obvious.Besides, no one is asking him to have "faith" in science in the way one has faith in God".That was the basis of my explanation to him about his inappropriate expectations of science as a philosophical "ultimate truth".PS Please think about using apostrophes in the appropriate places. It's clunky and jarring to read "don't" as "dont" and "he's" as "hes".[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-21-2003]

quote:

---

A continumm of genetic similarity and morphological similarity, starting with those animals that look most like us (primates) being the most genetically similar - including the same broken genes and garbage DNA - and decreasing as we look farther away. For instance.

---

But how do you know if God made it like that, that is not moving away from Creation at all.
Linearity in the fossil record, from simpler organisms on the bottom to more advanced forms on top. For instance.
The fossil record is explained here, basically the record is made of 95% Marine specimens, AiG explains why land animals are found at the top providing evidence for evolution, but this isn't evidence, heres the link: Where Are All the Human Fossils? | Answers in Genesis
Scroll down, look at The Nature of the Fossil Record."None of this makes sense from a view of creation. But it makes plenty of sense with an explanation of evolution."Check out the link, as for the DNA, God made everything, thus the formations of DNA and the genetic closeness and farther distances are from the Creator.

quote:

---

Thats what make the Bible so right!
But it was written by men with limited knowledge. That's why it's wrong about so much stuff. (Take a look through the biblical inerrancy board to see some examples.) If the bible doesn't change when we find out something new, then it's wrong. it's pretty simple, really.

---

Those men had more knowledge then you in the eyes of the Creator. (I'll look into the board), but I know that I won't find anything, valid...
You don't understand, God knows everything, he made it, when a mere finding is made it doesn't make the Bible wrong.

quote:

---

But with observability does it only become Science, or correct in the eyes of man.
What other eyes are there? Even your bible was written by men. (And maybe some women.) And god's not talkin'...

---

"Correct in the eyes of man", Ever hear the phrase I won't believe it until I see it?
But then you say, Yes you haven't seen God so you are contridicting yourself now.
Of course God's talkin' but the world is either to blind or ignorant to hear it. No, I've seen God working through many pastors, and speakers, telling his story, or reading his word. You can't see God until you know him. He comes into your life through the Holy Spirit. I'm not trying to preach but this is what I believe, and this argument will not end unless we make a compromise... But that is impossible, we are held to strongly at odds. And my belief depends on eternity, yours doesn't. My Bible was written by God through men.

quote:

---

However, rather than challenging you to come up with something resembling a working definition of "kind" - since it is the basis of your assertion that change between "kinds" is impossible - I'd like to address what appears to be a more fundamental problem. Implicitly or not, you seem to have an extremely narrow, and erroneous, idea of what "science" itself is, based on the above and on subsequent postings. You appear to advocate that only that which is observable or directly manipulatable is science. Every time I encounter this argument, I am again amazed at how anyone living in our modern, technological world can maintain such a limited, parochial view of the incredible endeavor that is science. Do you really think that all scientists do is go out and collect bags of facts or putter about with expensive and exotic glassware in laboratories? It boggles my mind that someone can hold this attitude and yet sit in front of a computer, compose messages to people half-way around the world, and send them out instantaneously through a system that is based in large measure on the theoretical properties and behavior of things no one has ever directly observed or manipulated! The cognitive dissonance inherent in this worldview is beyond my comprehension. It truly is.

---

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.I see clearly where it says theoretical explanation of phenomena. Theories aren't Science until proven to a certain degree. Am I wrong?
Now my point is that Evolution is not proven to the certain degree of it all being true. All the evidences seem to be thwarted, [ie. the fossil record.]
I see where your coming from, you think that Evolution is Science because it has been proven countless amounts of times. I disagree. The rest of Science is observable. Which evolution clearly is not.

quote:

---

Of course science is wrong! It was rather wrong yesterday, and it is, admittedly, somewhat wrong today, and it will be ever-so-slightly wrong tomorrow! But it is continually becoming less wrong, and it is demonstrably closer to the truth about nature than any other form of knowledge. Now, kindly tell us, where is your religion wrong?

---

It isn't. The Bible isn't wrong! My beliefs aren't wrong.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me, Back it up! How do I know anything you say is true? Explain in greater detail, C'mon I want to see this genetic sequence data, or the the evolutionary trees!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Somehow I truly doubt you could even have the faintest grasp of what a tree tells you or how it is reconstructed much less doing it yourself from raw sequences...but you are very right not to take somones word for things as true...

---

The genetic sequences were made by God, (if this is what you mean) the data is closer between us and primates, and then the data decreases going down through the other animals. (Crashfrog told me this before.)Thats a lot o' links.

quote:

---

Baseless assertion, again. You claimed there was a fallacy. Please show where. Simply wishing it to be so does not make it so.

---

Proof within DNA sequences. You use real facts to prove your theory within it's boundaries. But God made everything (cannot stress that enough.) It was made like that. Sure if it supports your theory, go ahead use it.The Fossil Record, scroll up to the link to AiG.Schrafinator,I believe in Science as a whole, God made the Sciences. But when a theory that has not been proven interferes I start not to trust what you call science, (which is what I call Evolution.)-I'll be out. (Sharon I didn't answer you because I feel it useless for me to do so, I have expressed to you what I believe.) Wow too many people to debate with.------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

" Do you have anything other than incredulity & rhetoric to support your claim?"

quote:

---

The Question is: Do you?

---

"Yup, see above, the ball is back in your court. I repeat, do you have anything other than incredulity & rhetoric to support your claim?"IN REPLY: Creation: Where’s the Proof? | Answers in Genesis
Ill match your link. This guy explains more on a less scientific approach, why Creationists rely on the Bible and Why what we see around us all makes sense using it.-last one before I have to go ------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

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.

We are HEELALThe one called "prophecyexclaimed"We call on YouHeed these WordsWe are HEELALWe are One and We are InfiniteWe Created EverythingWe Created the one called GodYour Belief in the one called God is insufficientWe call on YouExtend Your BeliefThis shall be Our SignIt is WrittenWe are HEELAL{Added by Parasomnium: don't blame me, PE, I'm just passing it on}[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 08-21-2003]

Hi, Proph!In order for Creationism to be science, you need arguments that don't require religious conversion before they make sense.--Percy

AiG take a great many words to tell a very simple story.Their presupposition is "We know the conclusion, so we must interpret evidence in ways that support it."The natural consequence of this is of course that evidence that can't be so interpretted (e.g. retro-viral insertions, the human/ape chromosomal fusion event, etc. etc.) don't get a look in.Telling also is the misrepresentation of the evidence that sometimes has to take place to support creationism - anyone remember Kent Hovind and his sunflower Cytochrome C?You can't call that science by any stretch of the imagination.

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."

quote:

---

Proph:

​

Linearity in the fossil record, from simpler organisms on the bottom to more advanced forms on top. For instance.
The fossil record is explained here, basically the record is made of 95% Marine specimens, AiG explains why land animals are found at the top providing evidence for evolution, but this isn't evidence, heres the link: Where Are All the Human Fossils? | Answers in Genesis
Scroll down, look at The Nature of the Fossil Record.

---

Proph, first of all, Creationists have not provided any evidence whatsoever that the Flood occurred. There is absolutely nothing physical in the geologic record to suggest such a thing. I would suggest you take note of that fact first.Now as for the fossil record:1. Marine fossils are more common simply because for the entire history of this planet, water has covered more of the Earth's surface area than land. Today, ~80% of the Earth's surface is covered by water. In addition to this, marine habitat is much more conducive for fossil preservation - especially in the shallow marine environment. I am not positive, but I believe a greater percentage of marine life live in the shallow marine environment, mainly because there is more oxygen and light. Additionally, the shallow marine environment is energetic with crashing waves, strong currents, more susceptible to storms, all of which increase the chances of quickly burying lifeless or immobile organisms.Marine life occurring in this shallow marine environment are dominated by shelly organisms or ones that contain other hard parts (e.g., teeth, and bone), which also, interestingly enough, happen to be the most common fossils in the entire fossil record. These organisms are crustaceans, clams, brachiopods, corals, sponges, etc., and even you must surely understand how easy these types of things can be preserved - especially in that environment.Now, can you understand why marine life makes up most of the fossil record? And why this is not detrimental to the quality of the fossil record? Snelling is intentionally confusing you about the fossil record. Making it sound worse than it, in fact, is.As for land fossils, dead organisms are at the mercy of scavengers, the weather, etc. The higher the organism lives in altitude, the more difficult the preservation process, since anything above sea level is generally subjected to weathering and erosion — NOT deposition, which is required for forming fossils. This is why catastrophic events, such as floods, are often responsible for forming great fossil assemblages. Animals can drown, fall into holes (karst terrains) or tar pits, and they can be covered by fast-moving bodies of sand, as well. And in this context, doesn't the paucity of land vertebrate fossils make sense to you?2. According to AiG, marine fossils would have been among the first destroyed by the fountains of the great deep breaking open, with the erosional runoff from the land due to the torrential rainfall concurrently burying them. So in effect, we should find marine organisms buried by huge continentally-derived sediments. Not only sand a gravel type sediments, but rocks and boulders! However, I have yet to come across any geological evidence presented by even creationists that shows this. Nowhere in the fossil record is this seen - at least not at the scale required by a global flood.If this is true, why isn’t it being presented by Creationists? Why didn't Snelling snap a picture of this and place it in the article you linked? Because it’s not there, Proph.Also according to AiG, mammals are found higher in the fossil/geologic record because they would have been able to move up into the higher elevations to escape the flood. However, we do not ALWAYS find mammal fossils on tops of mountains. In fact, some of the highest mountains in the world, Mt. Everest for one, only contain marine fossils. And those are not even found loosely on the surface as one would expect, but within the rock. Now surely, any mammals living in the vicinity of Mt. Everest would have climbed up those sides to what would have been the most promising place on the planet to escape a flood!Fact is, most vertebrate fossils found today are in deeply eroded valleys, not on top of mountains. Same goes for human remains! The only human remains found on mountain tops are the occasional hiker, hunter, or murdered ice man. Not the hundred or thousands of people you would expect to find fleeing the flood of the millenium.3. As for Snelling’s analysis of why there are no human fossils in the flood deposits, it’s just plain hogwash. What about all those other humanoid-looking fossils that have been found? Humans are organic-based animals same as monkeys, fish, and dinosaurs, our bodies decompose the same as other mammals. If you are fiding mammal fossils, you should find humans, too.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 08-21-2003]

Hi Mark.As far as I can understand it , Genesis and the Bible is a premise, the same as the premise of a Primordial pool. Hi, we are not meant to be able to prove God's existance or that Jesus was the son of God. Even when Jesus walked the Earth many did not believe He was the son of God. If we can prove it, there would be little need for faith huh Possibly the whole faith thing was just a conspiracy. If however you want to prove the existance of Moses, you only have to go as far as Jesus's words, but then you believe Jesus never existed or was the son of God.One man's shaped the world for the next 2 000 years, you might believe it was the greatest con of all time and ask for evidence.
In the same way I might dispute the existence of Darwin and everything that has been written about him. Would we both be Nihilists ?

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]

That's why creationism is religion and evolution is science. We don't go by blind faith in science, we demand evidence. This is also the reason creationism isn't appropriate in science classes, it is based on faith. We can also prove the existence of Buddha, Confucius, Muhammed Ali, and Joseph Smith. Existence doesn't translate to authority. In Europe and Asia minor, yes. However, it could be argued that Muhammed Ali and Buddha had just as much of an effect on culture if all of Asia is taken into account. Christianity is not the only religion that has history and cultural signifigance. In fact, the Epic of Gilgamesh was probably written before the Old Testament. Does the fact that we have found the ancient Mesopotamian (sp?) culture that wrote the Epic make the Epic true?