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

Ok, what conclusions would you draw from what is observable then? Could you start with th observations you are including and show how you arrive at those conclusions? Thanks.

There are some other things observed, Navajo. (btw, you still aren't using the right reply button).First we see that 1,000,000,000 (Gyr) ago there are no traces of "complex" (multicellular life forms).After about 550 Myr ago we see a range of multicellular life forms that possess some of the characteristics of major taxonomic groups.In the 300 Myr ago range we see fish. The carries on.At each major stage we see a different range of life forms. There are some cases where there are clear connections between them. As we get closer to the present the range of living things is more like what is present now.There are some of the huge number of observations made. What inference would you draw from them?

David, it is ok here to go on memory part of the time. That hurries things along for one thing. But you have to watch how much of it you do and should flag things you post that you aren't sure of.I suggest you stop doing this now. Your memory and the "facts" you think you have are so very off the mark that you are about out of credibility. Do some research then come back with specific questions. After you know a little bit about the subjects under discussion you might be able to construct somewhat interesting arguments.

See, David. If you had just one little carelessness it might not be made such a big deal of. But once you show a little weakness the wolves come out of the forest. Then any misstep you make and wham you're dinner.I suspect you've gone now. Feeling very put upon I'm sure. But try to remember this is a forum for debating. Most of the people who hang around here just love to see their own posts. We will debate almost any fool topic that comes up. If you don't like being in a knock-down, no holds bared, nothing spared debate then you dropped in to visit the wrong place.Try not taking it personally. All that is being attacked is what you post NOT you personally. If you don't like the attacks on what you post then think a bit more before you post. I mean, really, a bird - mammal - you're just asking to have your throat torn out if you post stuff like that.

I've been doing that trying to find the replications of that 2 year old study. Where are they?

---

Common sense isn't

It's your evidence. Are you saying that there isnt' any replication yet?

---

Common sense isn't

Actually an organization here tried to replicate another experiment that Wirth was involved with. However, he was very difficult to contact to get details to execute the replication. When he finally responded it was to threaten to sue if someone tried to.The prayer experiment doesn't sound all that expensive to perform. I would think that the ICR, for example, would be anxious to see it replicated by completely independent organizations. They could fund it and have input on the controls put in place. Why isn't that done?It isn't that there is a lack of real scientists, Stephen. It is that the only time this sort of thing produces positive results and someone looks closly problems with the study show up. Sometimes very suspicious ones. Why would someone want to involve themselves with such things? There are lots of things to do with ones time that have a much greater chance of success.After all, as someone else has noted, if prayer worked the average life span of the priests etc. would be greater than the average life span of the members of the AAAS. Has someone run the statistics?

---

Common sense isn't

Did you not read the material referenced? Joe is willing to debate even on Brown's terms. However, Brown's original agreement, as a creationist lawyer notes does allow the editor to make the decision about religion. Brown chickend out.Sorry, but you have been shown to be wrong on this one too. You have yet to get anything right.

---

Common sense isn't

whatever, are you blind? Joe has agreed to debate on brown's terms but also has followed brown's orignial contract in suggesting changes.Brown ducked! Let's see if you can demonstrate an ability to read, both what is posted here and the references given.

---

Common sense isn't

from brown's web site: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory

quote:

---

One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 23 years: the debate should be limited to scientific evidence.

---

That same paragraph is quoed on the site where Joe describes his attempts to debate Brown.Your source is wrong. As evidenced by Brown's own site!I can sort of understanding you getting the science wrong but now you get this wrong too. Good job.

---

Common sense isn't

From my extensive readings in the various biblical interpretation threads here I believe I can interpret what he says. (watch this!) Humans have realized that they must look at the nature of the natural world to understand how it is here (the way it is ). The natural selection of other things has left what we see. The death of all others left "us here". Humans being part of the world asked the same question about themselves. The same processes apply to us (humans) as we are part of the natural world and related to all liveing things. Every individual organism reaches an end. Individual organisms do not evolve, populatons do. A clear reference to the moths of England and their adaptation to soot.There, see, isn't that easy? I don't know why you couldn't figure it out. Maybe you're not as smart as I am? (or maybe I've been reading some of those threads of Buz's too long )

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-25-2004]

[qs]Does "no holds barred" include being a little "snarky" sometimes?/qsIt shouldn't, of course. And I wasn't thinking about that in any detail. Of course, there need to be some "rules" and some decent behavior.I was more just using the phrase to mean that there will be responses (too many, according to Adminomooses) in great number to almost anything. That is, people are not shy and don't hold back.It seems to me that over all most of us on both sides do a pretty good job of not being 'snarky' all that often. And I think this is even true in spite of obvious cases of significant provication. Examples are 'secularists' using the word "myth" more than is really necessary and 'believers' suggesting that lies are being put forward or, as bad, thinking that they know more about these subjects than those who study them.