Is Dr Dino for real?

I don't know why but that one's just funny

He is not the best source for information.
He has some things that are interesting as theory, but I would leave it at that and search out another source.

Is he 'for real'? Depends what you mean. He probably believes the general message he sends, even if he knows that most of the specific things he says are inaccurate, or outright lies. He is like John Edwards from Crossing Over; he makes money by telling people what they want to hear.

Of course, scientifically he isn't 'for real.' Scientists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals and engage in honest debate. Dr. Dino sells VHS tapes for profit. His 'doctorate' is in 'Christian education' from a pay-per-degree diploma mill. (Called, I believe, Patriot University.)

Wherever there is a demand, capitalism will provide. And is there ever a demand for this kind of hokum!

I don't really blame him. People with poor critical thinking skills demand this stuff, and he makes a living providing it. It's just a media enterprise.

Yep, he uses people's faith to make money for himself and knowingly spreads misinformation and outright lies. The guy's a fraud.

Well, considering how long animals would be land locked on australia compared to the rest of the world. It makes sense that they would evolve differently than other animals.

Yesterday at 11:49 AM mac_philo said this in Post #4


Of course, scientifically he isn't 'for real.' Scientists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals and engage in honest debate. Dr. Dino sells VHS tapes for profit. His 'doctorate' is in 'Christian education' from a pay-per-degree diploma mill. (Called, I believe, Patriot University.)

Wherever there is a demand, capitalism will provide. And is there ever a demand for this kind of hokum!

I don't really blame him. People with poor critical thinking skills demand this stuff, and he makes a living providing it. It's just a media enterprise.

Click to expand...

One mistake about Hovind. His tapes do not have a copyright - they can be re-recorded and distributed without obtaining his permission.

Evolutionist propaganda magazines, videos, textbooks, and other indoctrinational materials are copyrighted materials. But I guess that is OK -who would want to reproduce such nonsense anyway?

Today at 04:27 PM abraham said this in Post #8

One mistake about Hovind. His tapes do not have a copyright - they can be re-recorded and distributed without obtaining his permission.

Evolutionist propaganda magazines, videos, textbooks, and other indoctrinational materials are copyrighted materials. But I guess that is OK -who would want to reproduce such nonsense anyway?

Click to expand...

It's true, Hovind gives permission to copy and distribute his tapes.

However, I would wager that most creationist literature is copyrighted. Hovind's videos are probably the exception, not the rule.

Of course, Copyrighted or not, the fact that scientists dont make tapes to sell but put most of their research on the internet and libraries for all to read, is to be ignored, right?

Arikay;

Scientists put patents on their research so that no one else can duplicate it, correct?

1st April 2003 at 11:56 PM abraham said this in Post #11

Arikay;

Scientists put patents on their research so that no one else can duplicate it, correct?

Click to expand...

WHAT? Never heard of such a behaviour.

Scientists may put patents on the implementation of their research, though - which is a legal behaviour in a capitalistic society.

1st April 2003 at 05:56 PM abraham said this in Post #11

Scientists put patents on their research so that no one else can duplicate it, correct?

Click to expand...

No, they publish their research and methodology in journals so that other scientists can attempt to duplicate their research.

Take for example pharmaceuticals. They are patented so that they cannot be reproduced by others under "generic" brands. The company who produces the original therefore has a monopoly on the market, though others would be able to produce the same product cheaper, making it more affordable for the average person.

Guess the average person and the poor die off that way. Evolution is not to the strongest, but to the wealthy I suppose.

*puzzled at how a hydrogen atom evolved into a helium atom, which then over billions of years became a capitalist CEO*

Notice, you said Company.
Your mixing the goals of a company (which hires scientists) with the goals of the scientific comunity.

Well, I believe one way a hydrogen atom evolves into a helium atom is that it gets compresed in a star. It becomes so compressed that a Fussion reaction occurs and this atomic reaction produces Helium.

1st April 2003 at 07:25 PM abraham said this in Post #14

Take for example pharmaceuticals. They are patented so that they cannot be reproduced by others under "generic" brands. The company who produces the original therefore has a monopoly on the market, though others would be able to produce the same product cheaper, making it more affordable for the average person.

Guess the average person and the poor die off that way. Evolution is not to the strongest, but to the wealthy I suppose.

*puzzled at how a hydrogen atom evolved into a helium atom, which then over billions of years became a capitalist CEO*

Click to expand...

1st April 2003 at 10:25 PM abraham said this in Post #14

Take for example pharmaceuticals. They are patented so that they cannot be reproduced by others under "generic" brands. The company who produces the original therefore has a monopoly on the market, though others would be able to produce the same product cheaper, making it more affordable for the average person.

Click to expand...

In that case though, the scientist would be working in the employ of a company. In which case anything they produce (research-wise) would be owned by the company.

That's not the same scenario as a scientist working for a university, for example.

OOPs double post.

Scientists put patents on their research so that no one else can duplicate it, correct?

Click to expand...

I think if you study patent law you will find that it is stipulated that the one skilled in the art should be able to duplicate the results in a patent.  In my experience it can be a bit tricky unless you are really skilled in the art but it should be possible. The patent could be invalidated if the results can not be duplicated so the opposite of what you say is true. You just can't make the stuff and sell it until patent expires as has been pointed out already.

The Frumious Bandersnatch