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

quote:

---

You turned my comment into something that wouldn't make common sense.

---

No. Your comment didn't make common sense. There was no turning. Schraf pointed out a consequence of your position. If you don't like the consequences, change the position.

quote:

---

I mean in life not one instance.

---

Is EVERY instance not 'in life'? Thus, it is perfectly valid to choose any instance and check the consequences.

quote:

---

Of course I would use the man made books in that instance.

---

Why? The man-made books contradict the Bible in this instance and you did state that you would choose the Bible over any man-made book. You are not beig consistent.

quote:

---

Looks like you tried to twist what I say into something that doesn't make sense.

---

Wrong. There is no twisting. You said something which implies a great many things that do not make sense.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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

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]

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, yes, but only up to a point. The addendum which incorporates 'G' would have to be logically consistent with the rest of the series, even if it means reworking the whole series. But like I said, this only works up to a point. It might not be possible to incorporate 'G' into the series at all and the whole thing would have to be trashed. This is basically what happened to Newton's orbital mechanics-- we were seeing things that simply could not be incorporated into his theory. Einstein explained those observations not by modifying Newton, but by developing a radically different theory.

quote:

---

The same could be said by a Creationist really.

---

Really, I wish someone could show me how. In all these threads I haven't seen one good piece of pro-creationist evidence or logic.

quote:

---

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'.

---

It is the creationists who insist on the association. I think the reason for this is pretty simple-- the case for evolution is just about the strongest case in science. Not so for abiogenesis. No one quite knows how it would have worked. There are a lot of question marks. Thus, creationists tie a strong theory to a weak one and claim to destroy both. It doesn't work that way, and the effort is fundamentally dishonest.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com