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

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 ?

So you say. Mark, how would you expect me to prove something which is a faith ? We can look at historical facts and see if any scientific data correlates to it, but at the end of the day there will always be a perfectly logical explanation for everything. Jesus never existed and if He did, then He was a fraud. And if He really had special powers, it couldn't really have come from God. The list goes on.The Bible has been proven to be remarkable accurate historically (especially in the old testament), so its not 'blind faith' as you like to call it. Can I prove that Jesus's miracles happend ? No, they are miracles afterall If you could prove it and reproduce it, it wouldn't be a mirable would it ?Evolutionists already knows where life started and how it happend. NOTHING can disprove EVOLUTION. Not if we find bones of giants, or skeletons with horns on them. There is no way I can convince any evolutionist by logic that God exists, the only way would be for you to go to church and try find God. But you wont because you already know religion is a load of junk. Even if we disprove 'macro' evolution, that still does not mean Jesus died for our sins.
Creationists do exactly the same. They know the start and the end of it all and look for data to beef up their views.You can take Genesis (and creation)as literal if you like, but then you would have to wonder why woman was created with a rib and when did God give Adam semen ? It really isn't difficult if you like. Heck, a talking serpent, surely IMPOSSIBLE! Keep in mind that God was not explaining creation to a panel of Evolutionists, he was explaining it to a simple man. Moses by his own admission was not a great speaker and I dont think God really intended us to scientifically prove anything in Genesis. That Adam and Eve sinned, however would have to be pretty accurate, how God created the Sun, not.If I can give you an example from Revelation.Revelation 12vs1 "A great and wonderous sign appeared in heaven. a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head"Revelation 13 vs16-17 "And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; 17 and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, [even] the name of the beast or the number of his name."Both from the same book, but which one do you think is more figurative ?I can point you to the remarkable resemblance between the 666 number and the currently Barcode system, but again... doesn't prove anything. Perhaps were all guilty of being a bit stubborn ?Your quote sais it all.

Fallicies in the evolutionary theory. Hi, I dont quite think there is nothing to evolution prophecyexclaimed. Evolutionists do have proof that there are mutations and that natural selection occurs. We can accept that and still believe God created it all. God would not have created Man and animal to be simple creatures, he made us able to adapt to our environment. We can give that much to evolutionists, however the real question is "Is random mutation and natural selection" the reason we went from nothing to life ?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. If you want to learn more about the theory of evolution and such, best to listen to what they have to say and understand the theories before claiming it all to be false.cheers[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-21-2003]

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

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

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

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

How is that any different from using the Big Bang and evolutionary theory in filtering what you will, will not accept ? You will not accept Creation, because of the Big Bang theory. Everyone seems to have their blinkers on. Hi, its not my site. It's merely a site I could pull that quote from.
I suppose I can go and post every possible mathematical formula I can find, but I doubd't any of us would even be able to understand it, thus I posted the opinion of well respected Scientists and Mathematicians. Seeing as they are not on the forums to defend their theories, and I would'nt be out to defend it either, I think we should go by their statements dont you think ?"The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory"
Sir Fred Hoyle.You can choose to criticise Hoyle's theories after his death, and post them here, but unfortunitely I wont be able to defend it. I go by when he said when he was alive.

I posted a quote from Einstein. I used the first site I could find on the net that listed that quote. If you choose to ignore Hoyle, feel free.

Mammuthus, So if something cant be proved to be false, it cant be a valid 'scientific' hypothesis ? On a smaller scale, how can Darwin's explanation of instinct in evolution be a hypothesis ? How is it possible to disprove ?cheers.

Fair enough. However Darwins explantion of instinct in Evolution. How can that be a hypothesis ? How would one prove that wrong ?

Simple. How would I go about proving that instinct has nothing to do with the ToE. What would I need to do to disprove it ?thanks

Hi, I've asked before about how one would disprove evolution, what it would take. Now my question is how one would disprove Darwins hypothesis that instict is related to evolution. I just figure you guys clearly seem pretty knowlegable of science, hypethesis, testing ect that you could explain it to me.thanksPS: My hypothesis isn't that Instict cannot be proved false, just that for one I'm not a scientist, so I actually struggle to understand everything Darwin writes about in Origin of Species ect..cheers[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-23-2003]

Sorry Mark, been away for a while. Hi, from what I could gather, Darwin used the fossil record as evidence originally of evolution. I think he spent something like 27 years perfecting it (but I read that on some Christian site, so I cant verify it as unbias information). From what I've gathered, Darwin's original ToE has had its revisions and alterations to suit the evidence more, am I correct ? How you can create a logical argument for the BB theory would probably not apply to me as to be honest I just wouldn't be able to grasp the logic I've tried to read up on it, from dark energy to the event horizon, and I still cant see it.My point was that if A,B,C,D,E,F, H,I point to evolution and 'G' does not point to evolution, then there would be an evolutionary theory to explain 'G' and thus 'G' would fit in with the rest of the alphabet and the ToE. The same could be said by a Creationist really. I dont believe I claimed to be able to mathematically falsify evolution, I merely posted opinions of respected scientists in their fields on the topic of a 'random' universe. I even stated that I am not be able to understand the mathematics and that I would clearly not be able to defend Hoyle's view.PS: I dont think Christians would have much fo a problem accepting evolution (well not macro atleast, if I may use the term so loosely), if it was not so closely associated with the 'abiogenesis'.cheers