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

Hovind doesn't know what he's talking about. Not surprising, of course. Honestly why would you take a creeationists word on what evolution is? I wouldn't ask an atheist to describe Christianity, or a Chrisitian to tell me about Islam.The Theory of Evolution states that the diversity of life on earth can be explained through a process of decent through modification, where organisms are adapted to their environment through a process of natural selection and random mutation.That's it. That's all. The other stuff is science, but it's not evolution. For instance, if you read Gould's "The Structure of Modern Evolutionary Theory" or any other evolutionary text, it covers biology, and that's it. The big bang is never discussed (except incidentally, perhaps), or any of the other stuff. Wrong again. "Adaptation" as a phenomenon is an evolutionary idea. It was Darwin's idea, remember? He came up with adaptation in "Origin of Species". Adaptation wasn't a "known fact" until evolutionists pointed it out so please give credit where credit is due. But adaptation is sufficient to explain the origin of new species through time. So it is, in fact, evolution.

Religion is revelatory. Science is not. Case closed - not a religion. Anyway modern evolutinary theory isn't "based on the teachings of Darwin" any more than modern physics is just Newton's ideas. There's a lot more going on. We don't teach from Darwin's books anymore, you might have noticed. On the other hand your religion has been using the same textbook for 2000 years or more. Get with the times!

Funny, then, that he didn't mention it to anybody. After all the view that species had been created in their current, immutable form was the accepted view by both science and the church until the 1800's.

The problem is, what your book says is wrong.I'd rather be almost right, and getting closer, than eternally and totally wrong. After all, if your book was right, don't you think the findings of science would be moving closer to it, instead of so drastically away from it? Yeah, theories adapt and change in the light of new evidence. I know the idea of basing what you believe on verifyable, physical evidence is an alien one to you, but it's what science does. And the evidence we have access to changes over time. So it's only natural that our models of the world change, too.That fact that the bible is unchanging is the clearest evidence to me that it's wrong.

Do you realize what you're saying? That's not how adaptation works.What happens is that rabbits that are born with white fur in a snowy area reproduce more than those who don't. After a while genetic mutations accumulate and the new population of white rabbits can't or won't breed with the old ones. (That means they're a new species of rabbit.)Snow doesn't turn rabbits white. And your children won't inherit the body you work out in the gym.

Darwin did have a degree in theology, you know. Don't you think he would have known the difference between science and religion?Evolution is science, in the same way paleontology, anthropology, and even astronomy are sciences. After all we can't do experiments on stars. It's a falsifyable theory that's been substantiated by evidence. To deny this is to close your eyes to evidence, which isn't only stupid, it's against the forum guidelines.(BTW start using the UBB codes, like {qs}quoted text{/qs} only with square brackets instead of curlies.)

A continumm of genetic similarity and morphological similarity, starting with those animals that look most like us (primates) being the most genetically similar - including the same broken genes and garbage DNA - and decreasing as we look farther away. For instance.Linearity in the fossil record, from simpler organisms on the bottom to more advanced forms on top. For instance.None of this makes sense from a view of creation. But it makes plenty of sense with an explanation of evolution. But it was written by men with limited knowledge. That's why it's wrong about so much stuff. (Take a look through the biblical inerrancy board to see some examples.) If the bible doesn't change when we find out something new, then it's wrong. it's pretty simple, really. What other eyes are there? Even your bible was written by men. (And maybe some women.) And god's not talkin'...

No, we're just pointing out inconsistencies in your beliefs. After all if you'll accept the findings of science where they contradict the bible on astronomy, why won't you accept science when it contradicts Genesis?Seems like a double standard to me.

Sounds more like a matter of closing your eyes to what's been plainly laid out before you. If that's "faith", you can keep it. I'll live with eyes open, thank you very much.

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.

Nope. Physical evidence: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."

Well, even an evolutionist will answer "no" to that question. Mutation and natural selection only work once there's life to mutate and be selected for. Now that is something we can agree on.

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.

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, 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.