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

quote:

---

Besides the whole evolution thing? Well, the Bible says that there's water above the sky - that basically, the sky is blue because it's made of water.

​

Science shows this isn't true. This is basically the context of Schraf's comments.

---

This is by far the most idiotic comment that I have seen posted.There was once water above the sky, this water was rained down when the Flood occured. If you knew anything of my beliefs you would have seen the verse:Gen 7:11,12 In the six-hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all of the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the FLOODGATES OF THE HEAVENS WERE OPENED. (12) And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.And you would have realized that this does in fact mean that, that water above the sky isn't there because of the Flood. (Also that water above the sky that surrounded the earth provided a world of a hyperbaric chamber. Thus the reason for people to live for over 900 years. The oxygen content and pressure to be inhaled in was enormous.)
Evolutionists agree with the fact that the oxygen content was richer in the days of Noah. (They might not believe in Noah but they believe when we think he lived the air was richer in oxygen, and the pressure was greater.)Please no more mindless comments on things you know nothing about it seems.(Sorry crashfrog for the harshness but seriously, know what your saying.)------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."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

Oh? Water above the sky? What held it up there? Magic? Yes, it would have been. It would have been so enormous that no life could have existed beyond bacteria. And what makes you think pure oxygen is good for your health? You've never breathed pure oxygen, have you? You should try it sometime and then come back and tell me how good it feels, especially on your throat and other mucus membranes. Pretty big talk from somebody who appears to be totally ignorant of atmospheric science, human physiology, and even basic physics. Maybe you'd like to think your arguments through before you shoot your mouth off with some non-Answers From Genesis.

Nope. Physical evidence:

quote:

---

1) Fossil record of such transitions.
2) Experimental evidence of the capability of random mutation + natural selection to give rise to new species.
3) No detectable barriers to prevent the kind of evolutionary change we infer from the fossil record.

​

What you may have meant was: "Physical evidence for God: none."

---

Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Shows how the Fossil Record is becoming more random and has been increasing in ranges of fossils.http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.aspHmm.. Some of the Column missing? Does it Really Exist? The above link shows in great detail."2) Experimental evidence of the capability of random mutation + natural selection to give rise to new species."Adaptation."3) No detectable barriers to prevent the kind of evolutionary change we infer from the fossil record."Except the missing parts huh?Know I meant to say Physical Evidence for Darwinism: none.------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."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

Animal fossils, sure. Animals move and get fossilized in weird ways. Certainly your link fails to make a case that the fossil record is getting more "random". We're just refining our knowledge of what lived, when.But you never find grasses with dinosaurs. Never. Why would that be the case? Grass can't move. Surely some dinosaur must have died with some grass, or even eaten some? The only explanation is that grass evolved millions of years after dinosaurs. Yes, adaptation gives rise to new species. Oh, you disagree? Then show me the mechanism that prevents adaptation from giving rise to new species. In the meantime we'll show you documented instances of adaptation giving rise to new species. Yeah, what's missing is any evidence for a barrier that would prevent adaptation from giving rise to new species.Adaptation is evolution because it gives rise to new species. it's pretty simple.

Well crashfrog, the problem us believers will have is that there is an abundance of life on Earth, yet nothing it seems anywhere else.You have to excuse most of us 'non evolutionists' when we dont believe or find abnormalities in the 'rational' thought behaviour of free thinkers.ForinstanceNature - Not Found'Most dog fossils date only from about 7,000 years ago, says Juliet Clutton-Brock, an expert on the history of domestic mammals working at the Zoological Society of London. "So even 15,000 years ago is too early.'She was referring to Domestication of dogs. You have to understand that non-scientists using basic logic struggle to always believe the 'ageing' methods used by scientists and DNA. When the fossil record does not agree with the DNA evidence, we have to start to wonder.Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA wrote: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.We have scientists telling us two things... God and no God. To us without a doctorate that dont understand the basics of genetics, we have to go by what sounds more reasonable to us.Page Not Found"Faced with the limits of human (not geologic) time, what can we conclude about the origin of life from an experiment that demonstrates the possibility of life as the result of a random causation, but not the certainty of it? Fifty years later, even the scientific community is still split on how to interpret the results of the Miller-Urey experiment. While some conclude, as Urey did, that the experiment points out a likely path to the spontaneous chemical evolution of life, others contend that there is plenty of mathematical evidence in molecular biology and particle astrophysics to support a case against the ‘accidental’ formation of life."There is no proof of evolution crashfrog, only clues

quote:

---

Yes, it would have been. It would have been so enormous that no life could have existed beyond bacteria. And what makes you think pure oxygen is good for your health? You've never breathed pure oxygen, have you? You should try it sometime and then come back and tell me how good it feels, especially on your throat and other mucus membranes.

---

I'm the one with non-answers? Sure for your closed mental capacity.I did not say pure oxygen. I said more oxygen, stop putting words in my mouth alright? And yes I have breathed in pure oxygen it felt refreshing at first and then not so refreshing. ER time for cat alergies bro.So you are saying that 4000 years ago there was no life on earth beyond bacteria? You obviously are mistaken. We must not be on the same page.------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."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

quote:

---

Yes, adaptation gives rise to new species. Oh, you disagree? Then show me the mechanism that prevents adaptation from giving rise to new species. In the meantime we'll show you documented instances of adaptation giving rise to new species.

---

Speciation | Answers in Genesis
This is what I have for Speciation.
Hit some of the topics.------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."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

Well, we've hardly looked, have we? For all we know, it takes a planet just like Earth to have life. How many of those besides Earth do you know of? Well, maybe it's time to realize that without the proper knowledge, what sounds more reasonable to you may very well be wrong. And it's not like it's that hard to ground yourself in basic genetics. Stop by your library, they can help. I reccomend "the Cartoon Guide To Genetics". I know it sounds fruity but it's a great book, and very accessable to laypersons. Sure. That's the nature of science. There's never proof. But there's as many clues that point to evolution as there are clues that point to General Relativity.

Well, if pure oxygen is bad, then more oxygen can't be automatically good, can it? No, what I'm saying is that if your model is true - if enough water to flood the earth was suspended over the atmosphere - the pressure would have been so great as to kill all life on earth.Since there's life on earth, we know then that your model is wrong. Ergo, there's never been enough water over the earth to flood the earth - not even close.Let me sum up - the presence of life on earth falsifies your theory about water above the sky.

"Sure. That's the nature of science. There's never proof. But there's as many clues that point to evolution as there are clues that point to General Relativity.""But there's as many clues that point to evolution as there are clues that point to General Relativity."But there isn't.------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."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

But there is. Why don't you go to a bookstore and pick up Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory"? You'll find the evidence therein. Of course you may need a biology degree to understand most of it. I certainly don't pretend to understand the whole thing, or have the patience to read all the way through it.Now, can we be done with the unsupported assertions?

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."

quote:

---

I accept all science, no science that I see contradicts The Word Of God.

​

Show me what you think does in fact do the Contradicting.

---

You have got to be joking? Scraf's NASA comment, which seems so objectionable to you, is just the type of thing meant.The Bible describes the world as having waters above and waters below the firmament. This directly contradicts direct observation gained from the space program.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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."

"No, what I'm saying is that if your model is true - if enough water to flood the earth was suspended over the atmosphere - the pressure would have been so great as to kill all life on earth. Since there's life on earth, we know then that your model is wrong."Oh really how is this? The pressure was up to a perfect amount for a more then perfect Earth.Ergo, there's never been enough water over the earth to flood the earth - not even close."Yes there has-by far. When combined with the "SPRINGS THAT BURST FORTH, a global flood occured."Let me sum up - the presence of life on earth falsifies your theory about water above the sky."WRONG-OYou have no idea what your talking about. It has been proven that life could have survived, survived with greatness actually, with the oxygen (this is good ask any scientist) people could have ran forever and not tire. Hold up lemme provide a link so you don't have to take my word for it. The Flood | Answers in Genesis ------------------
Psalm 14:1
The Fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."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