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

I'm done with you mark, you haven't provided anything useful for evidence yet you say I am the one being ignorant.------------------
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:

---

for chrissakes?

---

Please don't the Lord's name in vain it is quite disrespectful to me and to the man upstairs.------------------
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

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."

Good Night. We have certainly strayed off the topic .------------------
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

How is that possible? How much water do you suppose was in the atmosphere? Enough to raise the sea level 9km, perhaps? If that much water is held over the earth, guess what the atmospheric pressure has to be? The same as if you were 9km below the surface of the earth:

quote:

---

Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today.

​

How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible?

---

(From No webpage found at provided URL: http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/origins/canopy.txt)What kind of life do we find at 9km below the surface of the sea? Mostly bacteria. So your high-pressure world isn't the perfect world for life, it's a sterile pressure cooker. Where did the water go, then? After the flood? Back into the springs? If so, where are the springs? (the non-Answer In Genesis: "God made them go away.") Nope. The pressure's too great, and the temperature too high, for life to exist. It's a pretty simple calculation, you should be able to follow it. It's pretty basic physics.

quote:

---

And you would have realized that this does in fact mean that, that water above the sky isn't there because of the Flood.

---

No it doesn't. It means the ancient israelites didn't understand that water evaporates and falls back down, only to cycle again. And so they postulates a reservoir of water in the sky. There is nothing in the story of the Flood to indicate that this cosmology changed radically with the Flood. What you are citing is creationist apologetics, not scripture.

quote:

---

(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.)

---

You realize that high oxygen concentrations are lethal? It does not make people live nine hundred years. It does, in fact, significantly shorten life-spans. And... No webpage found at provided URL: http://medind.nic.in/jac/t03/i3/jact03i3p234.pdf

quote:

---

Evolutionists agree with the fact that the oxygen content was richer in the days of Noah.

---

Where did you get this bit of info? It isn't accurate. Nor is the bit about the air pressure.

quote:

---

Please no more mindless comments on things you know nothing about it seems.

---

I hope you hang around. You're funny!!!------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-22-2003]

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,
The premise is flawed logically.
So you say Hmm. you seem to ignore the mathematical improbability weighing heavily against the odds of evolution, however you claim logic your defense. Must be difficult to prove you wrong. "@An undergraduate from a Northeast China's military academy has published a thesis in an authoritative Chinese physics magazine, raising doubts on Dr. Stephen Hawking's theory of the black hole. "http://english.pladaily.com.cn/...21001010_MilitaryNews.htmlFaith in Hawking, the Nebraska man maby ?I dont know, you tell me. But then it must be difficult to discredit science as 'science' evolves

quote:

---

I see where messenjah is coming from. You are making a mockery out of the Bible by trying to fit it into every possible situation. The NASA comment was just over the edge.

---

Look, Messenjah is the one who said that they would take the Bible as truth over all man-made books.I simply pointed out a situation in which the Bible's "science" would be completely useless.Don't blame me because messenjah doesn't think of the logical consequences of that which he/she writes.So PE, if you think it's ridiculous to try to use the Bible to inform yourself on physics or engineering, why do you not think it equally ridiculous to use the Bible to inform yourself on Biology or Genetics?

quote:

---

Speciation | Answers in Genesis
This is what I have for Speciation.
Hit some of the topics.

---

OK, this is a serious question, PE.I really want an answer.Is your faith so weak that you need science to validate it?Why are you going to a "scientific" Fundamentalist Christian website which openly admits that they will ignore any evidence that disagrees with what they have already decided to be true about nature before they ever even look at nature?I mean, they just filter everything through what they want to be true. That's exactly what it says right on their website.This is about as frigging opposite to how real science is done as you can get!Would you go to a mechanic to get your hair cut, or would you go to an accountant to have your appendix out?

Except for that pesky spontaneous combustion burning your running shoes off your feet....
Long before your time, PE, but what killed the three Apollo astronauts before they even launched the rocket back about 1970?And don't ask any scientist - I'm one, and I'll tell you AiG is utterly full of it.

quote:

---

But there isn't.

---

There's plenty of evidence for evolution.Do you really think that in a very contentious profession where the most famous people are the ones who smash the status quo would conspire to all basically agree with one another for a hundred years just to perpetuate a lie? For what reason would they do this. And, if it all was a lie, how is it that something called the "Modern Synthesis", which is the incorporation of the very new field of Genetics with the rather older field of Evolutionary Biology, could ever have happened?What Genetics shows is that, to a very large degree, Darwin was right.Anyway, upon what knowledge base of Evolutionary Biology do you base this bold assertion?How many college Biology courses or Genetics courses have you completed? How many times have you read through TalkOrigins? How much Dawkins, Gould, or even Darwin have you ever read? Have you ever read any science without the religious filters?Surely, you aren't deciding what is true about nature before you even look at any evidence, are you?

quote:

---

Yes there has-by far. When combined with the "SPRINGS THAT BURST FORTH, a global flood occured.

---

If a global flood occurred, then how come organisms of similar density didn't end up in the same geologic layers?Why aren't pterosaurs ever found in the same layers as similar-sized birds?Why are flowering plants, including grasses never, everfound in the lowest layers?Why are the fossils found all over the world ordered in exactly the same way, which is not by density?

Sea level? I do not believe there was a sea level on the Earth at that time, So far I have been led to believe that there were springs beneath a layer of earth and this provided for the people. (remember the verse?) and the SPRINGS OF THE GREAT DEEP BURST FORTH...THE FLOODGATES WERE OPENED.The Bible also makes it clear that there was no rain before the layer of water and ice (heavens that opened) fell on the earth for the Flood. Just a mist that went through the Earth.I am starting to think that this means nothing to you just because it is all coming from the Bible, faith needs to be applied to understand what I am saying and you have demonstrated to me that you all have given up on faith a long time ago (or just have none). I am going to stop posting here for this reason. Basically I am sick of fighting and getting nowhere, I could debate on this forever and no progress would ever be made. I stand by what ever I said, If you don't believe it that is fine. Don't take this the wrong way. I am not converting, changing my beliefs or just plainly giving up on you all, I am getting out of this topic, it is useless for us to drone on like this, I like debating but too much is enough, also being overcrowded by the Darwinist party has driven me to be debated with constantly... I can't post a thing without getting 3 or more responses usually. On to other debates. Man seems like I start a lotta debates around here. I leave you saying, I believe there is proof for Creation, might be yet to be discovered, all I know is that there is proof. I also believe the Flood has happened. All the proof AiG ICR DRDINO and many more have given is for the most part valid. I rely on them a lot to learn and debate on topic. I will also state that I believe Evolution is False and I believe that there is proof for that as well.I don't expect a debate over this, and I won't post on this topic again. So See ya on the others.(Take this as you want, but I am not wimping out.) Just too tired for all of this. You might not know what it's like being on the Evolutionist's side and all, having 2 creationists to debate with.If you think I am just wimping out and if you think I got "beat" I don't care, just telling you I dont think I have.------------------
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:

---

I leave you saying, I believe there is proof for Creation, might be yet to be discovered, all I know is that there is proof. I also believe the Flood has happened. All the proof AiG ICR DRDINO and many more have given is for the most part valid. I rely on them a lot to learn and debate on topic. I will also state that I believe Evolution is False and I believe that there is proof for that as well.

---

So, you believe in Creation not because of any convincing EXISTING evidence, but because of some that might be discovered in the future.Oh, wait, you go on to say that there actually IS proof and that a crackpot who bought his degree from a diploma mill run out of a split level and a website which openly professes that they ignore and reject any evidence that they don't happen to like are the best places to find it.The funny part is that even some Creationist sites have decided that Hovind is a wacko should be ignored!Finally, you state that you believe that evolution is false and that there is evidence to support it, yet you have not provided any such evidence on this board, even though it is the perfect place to do so.Wow.All that willful ignorance and desperate fearful clinging to a hollow, childish reading of the Bible culminates in the best part of all:

quote:

---

If you think I am just wimping out and if you think I got "beat" I don't care, just telling you I dont think I have.

---

He runs away from the debate because he has not a leg to stand on, he doesn't comment upon most of the evidence put before him, he puts forth NOTHING that calls any evolutionary claim into question, and then declares (to soothe himself, I suppose) that he, in fact, has not run away.PE, you truly are a great Creationists in the worst sense of the word.