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

That's why creationism is religion and evolution is science. We don't go by blind faith in science, we demand evidence. This is also the reason creationism isn't appropriate in science classes, it is based on faith. We can also prove the existence of Buddha, Confucius, Muhammed Ali, and Joseph Smith. Existence doesn't translate to authority. In Europe and Asia minor, yes. However, it could be argued that Muhammed Ali and Buddha had just as much of an effect on culture if all of Asia is taken into account. Christianity is not the only religion that has history and cultural signifigance. In fact, the Epic of Gilgamesh was probably written before the Old Testament. Does the fact that we have found the ancient Mesopotamian (sp?) culture that wrote the Epic make the Epic true?

You may want to take a look at the TalkOrigins.org faq page. It may have some of the specific answers you are looking for. It includes links to recent speciation events and support for "macroevolution". This site is probably referred to the most in evo vs creation debates, as far as evo sites go.

Explain how post-fertilization activities affect allele distribution. You seem to be saying that people are born with a "creationist" gene. How do you explain infertility among creationists? Sorry, not buying this one.

quote:

---

But you don't have to suffer, waiting! You can do your own experiments! What's your choice?

---

Indeed, why don't you do it Stephen? I think it would be an interesting study and would like to look over a proposed methodology. Perhaps start a new thread on methodology for such a study that we can all have input on? Avoid the "sneer" review and try and iron out a proposed study with us here on EvC, I think quite a few of us could contribute good ideas. The next hurdle would be funding, but I think there could be ways around that as well. Human subjects approval could be acquired gratis through a non-profit review board, as well as doctor participation. All thats left is time to crunch the numbers and a congregation willing to participate (gratis as well, I am guessing). I would start the thread personally, but want to make sure you would participate. Otherwise, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

Go ahead and start a new thread. It would be best for you to start out with a rough idea of the design and subjects of the experiment, be they human or plant. Plants don't require animal/human protocol review by a scientific review board, so maybe that would be best. Anyway, the ball is in your court.PS: Just as a note, as you already know there is a wide breadth of religious views here at EvC so it may be tough to find people to actually participate, but a lot of people would probably be happy to help design the protocol.

quote:

---

Joe apparently doesn't want to debate Walt, we all understand, he tried to change the topic to include religion, which would of made this debate meaningless, etc...

---

All Dr. Meert wanted to do is have Dr. Walt explain the basis for his hypothesis. Of course, for the hydroplate theory the basis would be the story of Noah in Genesis. Meert did not choose what Walt based his theories on, Walt did. Therefore Walt was bringing religion in no matter what, Meert just wanted this out on the table for everyone to see. If you look at Genesis as being a historical record, as Walt does, then the question of religion is avoided. Genesis just becomes a historical record, not a religious issue. It would seem that Walt does not want to say that his theories are Biblically based because it would weaken his argument. My final judgement is that Walt is ducking while Meert wants a fair scientific argument where the underlying evidence for each side's theories are fully discussed.

quote:

---

time isn't "real", it is an illusion of the mind.

---

The title of the thread includes the word "prove", so you must first prove that time is not real. You have to prove that your theory is not an illusion of YOUR mind.