Why Dr. Dino doesnt equate to Dr. Penniless

NebraskaMan · #1 17th March 2003, 04:04 PM

Because nobody "can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution*," the prerequisite towards winning $250,000 from Hovind.

*Note:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Morat · #2 17th March 2003, 04:16 PM

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

Not part of the theory of evolution.

Planets and stars formed from space dust.

Not part of the theory of evolution.

Matter created life by itself.

Not part of the theory of evolution.

Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

Not part of the theory of evolution. Self-replication preceeded evolution, you know.

Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Certainly not part of the theory of evolution. Now, had you stated that fish shared a common ancestors with amphibians, and reptiles shared one with birds and mammals.....

So, the reason Dr. Dino hasn't had anyone acccept his challenege appears to be, at least in part, because he's asking people to prove things evolution doesn't claim.

We could get into the other "problems" with his challenge (I particularly like his standards for judging), but I think the strawman nature of his challenge is sufficient.

NebraskaMan · #3 17th March 2003, 04:37 PM

The evolution theory describes the phenomena in adaptive development. U. Witt has defined evolution in this way:

"Evolution is a process in which a system under consideration
transforms itself over time. Thus, focus is on endogenously
caused change as opposed to change induced by external
forces."

This includes all of the aforementioned items. It gets a little old seeing so many evolution theologians (it is a religion), say that the parts that cannot be substantiated by empirical evidence are "not part of the evolution theory."

Correct me, if I am indeed wrong, but doesn't the "theory of evolution" hold that I formed from millions and millions of years of rain on the rocky crust of the earth? (Read: Pre-biotic Soup)

Smilin · #4 17th March 2003, 04:42 PM

Today at 04:37 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #3

Correct me, if I am indeed wrong, but doesn't the "theory of evolution" hold that I formed from millions and millions of years of rain on the rocky crust of the earth? (Read: Pre-biotic Soup)

Greetings,
and you are wrong.. Evolution doesn't state that..
you may have been LIED to and told that...

NebraskaMan · #5 17th March 2003, 04:43 PM

Okay, Smilin, could you explain to me where (you believe) I came from?

notto · #6 17th March 2003, 04:43 PM

Today at 09:37 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #3

The evolution theory describes the phenomena in adaptive development. U. Witt has defined evolution in this way:

"Evolution is a process in which a system under consideration
transforms itself over time. Thus, focus is on endogenously
caused change as opposed to change induced by external
forces."

This includes all of the aforementioned items. It gets a little old seeing so many evolution theologians (it is a religion), say that the parts that cannot be substantiated by empirical evidence are "not part of the evolution theory."

Correct me, if I am indeed wrong, but doesn't the "theory of evolution" hold that I formed from millions and millions of years of rain on the rocky crust of the earth? (Read: Pre-biotic Soup)

Evolution as it is discussed in biology classrooms has nothing to do with the nature of the universe. Evolution as it is discussed in biology classrooms has nothing to do with where or how life originally formed, only what happened to it afterword.

Much of what Dr. Dino asks for comes from sciences outside of what is referred to as evolution in scientific discussions.

Whether biological evolution is a valid theory would not change in any way the science behind geology, physics, and astrophysics which is discussed in the other topics he puts into his definition of "evolution".

It gets a little old seeing anti-science zeolots try to lump all of mainstream science into "evolution".

Smilin · #7 17th March 2003, 04:44 PM

Today at 04:04 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #1
*Note:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution).

That is part of Evolutionary Science. Why do you disregard that portion?

Refer to the Microgravity vs Macrogravity thread...

What you've just stated is equivalent to that argument on gravity.

Freodin · #8 17th March 2003, 04:46 PM

Today at 10:37 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #3

The evolution theory describes the phenomena in adaptive development. U. Witt has defined evolution in this way:

"Evolution is a process in which a system under consideration
transforms itself over time. Thus, focus is on endogenously
caused change as opposed to change induced by external
forces."

This includes all of the aforementioned items. It gets a little old seeing so many evolution theologians (it is a religion), say that the parts that cannot be substantiated by empirical evidence are "not part of the evolution theory."

Correct me, if I am indeed wrong, but doesn't the "theory of evolution" hold that I formed from millions and millions of years of rain on the rocky crust of the earth? (Read: Pre-biotic Soup)

No, that is indeed not a part of the Theory of evolution . You might call it a part of the Theory where we all come from - but that is a philosophical, and not a scientific theory.

Scientific theories deal with a certain, limited hypothesis. Many theories are linked, and some can even be combined - like electricity and magnetism, which where originally thought to be completly different phenomena. But that is not necessary for a scientific theory to be valid.

NebraskaMan · #9 17th March 2003, 04:49 PM

All of you would say that "minor variations found in all of the various life forms" is part of evolution theory, right?

Would all of you then be in agreement that the culmination of many of these "micro" changes over time can and must result in a "macro" change "(i.e. fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)"

notto · #10 17th March 2003, 04:50 PM

"I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God: "

This statment from Hovind also shows his arrogance and ignorance. There are many scientists who accept evolution and still have belief in God. He is equating evoltuion with atheism. This is demonstratably false. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the existence of God (nor does geology, astrophysics, or the rest of biology).