Why Dr. Dino doesnt equate to Dr. Penniless

[NebraskaMan]

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:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[notto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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).

 

[NebraskaMan]

I wouldn't equate it with ignorance. He believes the Bible is literal, and as such an old-earth (billions of years) creationist is about as viable is a young-earth (< 10,000 years) evolutionist.

 

[Arikay]

the "theory of evolution" only has to do with the adaption and change over time of animals.

Other things can evolve. But the "theory of evolution" is only about biology.

The other theories here are of the Big Bang (theory of how the unverse started) and Abiogenesis (the theory of life from non life). Both of these are seperate from evolution.

Nebraska Man: Just to let you know, Dr. Dino admits to Macro evolution in his FAQ. Check out my thread "dr Dino admits evolution"

 

[NebraskaMan]

Before I get a bunch of responses regarding the literal/non-literal parts of the Bible, let's not even go there. We can do it in the apologetics forum at another time.

 

[notto]

Today at 09:57 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #11

I wouldn't equate it with ignorance. He believes the Bible is literal, and as such an old-earth (billions of years) creationist is about as viable is a young-earth (< 10,000 years) evolutionist.

So you think he can show us a scientific paper on evolution that says that there is no God?

 

[Melchior]

Today at 09:50 PM notto said this in Post #10

"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).

But taken together geology, astrophysics, biology, and all the other sciences show a significant amount of proff for the LACK of creative design in our world and the universe in general. All of this is labeled under the evil heading of 'evolution' when being discused in creationist circles.

Hovind and others like him are not talking to the non-christian population when they write their articles and give their speeches, they are talking to the already indoctrinated. They are trying to convince them that they have knowledge that the rest of the world is trying to hide. They do this so that they can convince the Christians to buy their videos and books for the sole purpose of making some money. They are obviously smart enough to realise they are peddaling untruths, and are the worst kind of Christians out there, the ones that feed of their fellows.

 

[NebraskaMan]

Arikay, do you think that if you asked Hovind the question that he would go out and change the wording on his site and say his webmaster made a typo or would he admit macro-evolution? I'm going to choose the former. Always kill the messenger (just kidding).

 

[Arikay]

I dont know. I know it was more than just a miss type. That entire part of his FAQ would have to be rewritten. to fix his, um, Mistake.

I know, a long time ago, before I really knew his reputation, I e-mailed him about his "All bar codes have 666 in them" mark of the beast FAQ. all I got was an automated reply. so im not really sure he is listening to anything that doesnt praise him.

Today at 02:05 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #16

Arikay, do you think that if you asked Hovind the question that he would go out and change the wording on his site and say his webmaster made a typo or would he admit macro-evolution? I'm going to choose the former. Always kill the messenger (just kidding).

 

[NebraskaMan]

So you think he can show us a scientific paper on evolution that says that there is no God?

I think he (well probably not him, but someone with more of a theological background) could write a paper showing that evolution is not supported biblically.

 

[Freodin]

Today at 11:17 PM NebraskaMan said this in Post #18

I think he (well probably not him, but someone with more of a theological background) could write a paper showing that evolution is not supported biblically.

He could - well, you could propably do as well. So what?

Two problems:

1. There are a lot of things that are "supported biblically". In fact, most of our modern world would fall into this category. That does not keep Christians from using them - not even you.

2. If you mean with "not supported" "contradicting": well, evolution does contradict a certain view of the Bible. So does Heliocentrism or germ theory.

A certain view of the Bible even contradicts the postion of Gods omnipotence.

How do you know that it is not the interpretation that is wrong? You cannot look exclusively to the Bible for that - there is a whole universe outside, supposedly created by this very God.

 

[NebraskaMan]

Seems to me that if you differ with him on beliefs, and 9 out of 10 posters in this forum think that to call Hovind a village idiot is to give him too much credit, you should organize a debate. I know what you could do.

Let me note before saying this, that I am not a Hovind-Hater or a Hovind-Lover, I simply believe that if information is presented that differs from what you previously believed, don't hold onto your beliefs without doing research first.

I think something that Hovind would go for, that many would attend and enjoy, would be a web debate. Either all Q & A or a debate with a leading evolutionist (followed by a Q & A session). Anyone could log on, post questions (after or during the debate, pending on the format). These chat-type of forums are conducted all the time.