Null

Quote:

Originally posted by The Barbarian Hey Null, let's get started on your questions. Pick the one you think is toughest, and let me know what it is. We'll do them one at a time. Waiting...

Well if you can scientifically prove evolution there is $250,000 waiting for you...

www.drdino.com

The Barbarian

Wrong. "Dr. Dino" refuses to show that he has the money, and he refuses to identify his "secret panel of experts" to whom he says he'll submit the evidence. And since he's been found to have lied in federal court, one would have to be a fool to believe that either actually exists.

If he'd put the money in escrow, and permit an unbiased and open panel of judges, then I'd be pleased to take his money.

Meantime, we're still waiting for you to tell us which of those questions you want to start on...

You don't want people to think you're dodging the issue, do you?

Xyress

Quote:

Originally posted by Null Well if you can scientifically prove evolution there is $250,000 waiting for you... www.drdino.com

Kent Hovind's offer has been completely dissected to show why attempting to "prove" evolution on his terms would be an exercise in futility. If you're truly interested, you can read the whole analysis here:

Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer

Quote:

The terms of the offer are formulated to be unattainable and it would be nothing but a total waste of time and effort for any proponent of evolution to participate in his charade. The only intent of the offer is to gull the credulous and confuse the uninformed.

Now, let's start with your first problem you have with evolution like The Barbarian suggested.

__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"

- Albert Einstein

The Barbarian

I don't believe Null is going to be up to telling us.

Isn't that a surprise...

Null

I don't particularly feel like arguing right now, but we can start off with one of the biggest questions.

How did the universe come about?

Now there is no proof on either side of the wall. Both sides can only speculate and make educated guesses, but there are many things that point to the fact that the earth and the universe is not "billions" of years old (I'll post some later).

The Barbarian

How did the Universe come about? Science can't say. But I know. Someone said "Let there be light."

Of course, this has nothing whatever to do with evolutionary theory, which makes no claims about the origin of the universe.

Do you have any questions about evolution?

Null

How does life come from rocks?

Most evolutionists will pretty much say lots of time. But there are two laws in science that state the exact opposite. The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends towards disorder. And there is the law of spontaneous generation, life can not arise from non living matter.

Xyress

Quote:

Originally posted by Null I don't particularly feel like arguing right now, but we can start off with one of the biggest questions. How did the universe come about? Now there is no proof on either side of the wall. Both sides can only speculate and make educated guesses, but there are many things that point to the fact that the earth and the universe is not "billions" of years old (I'll post some later).

I'll take a stab at this one. You're right that there's no proof on either side about the origin of the universe - but that has nothing to do with evolution.

As to the age of the Earth, it is estimated to be about 4.55 billion years old using a variety of independent dating methods. What are the "many things" that point the "fact" that it is not that old? How old do you think the Earth is and why?

__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"

- Albert Einstein

MyUncle

Maybe someone should clue in the teachers in our school system that Abiogenesis is NOT part of the overall evolutionary theory. Because they have tried to teach my kids that evolution starts as we progress from nothing to the simplest of life forms into what we are today. They also teach the "Big Bang" as part of the evolution of our universe. I agree with you that the Big Bang is a seperate theory from evolution, but this misnomer is taught in our schools today. No wonder many people confuse the issue and start along the evolution is false. When it is all fused together it is a house of cards just waiting for them.

It cracks me up how it is okay if scientists cannot explain EVERYTHING, but it is NOT okay if religious types cannot. Just another double standard by people who try to "intelligently" refute the possibility of a G-D they are incapable of believing in.
They cannot tolerate the exsistence of G-D, so they have to skew the rules so that they can win every argument. Scientist inherintly have a good moral purpose and nothing to gain, but religious types are inherintly devious and are only trying to fool us all......in your world view. Laughable.

Poor feeble minds that cannot remain open so that when the answers are finally known they will not have to be oppressed by the exsistence of a G-D that they will never accept even when confronted with him face to face on judgement day. May we never have so much knowledge as to know how we came to be, for your sakes. I do not think you would believe it even if we had the knowledge and it were "scientifically" proven for you. Sad really!

Xyress

Quote:

Originally posted by Null How does life come from rocks? Most evolutionists will pretty much say lots of time. But there are two laws in science that state the exact opposite. The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends towards disorder. And there is the law of spontaneous generation, life can not arise from non living matter.

Oh boy ... someone's been reading some creationist propaganda. First of all, I think what you're trying to refer to is called abiogenesis - and it certainly doesn't say that life came from rocks. Evolution is related to abiogenesis, but not dependent on it. The theory of evolution starts with the assumption that there is life.

Explain why evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - this should be interesting ...

__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"

- Albert Einstein

Xyress

Quote:

Originally posted by MyUncle [snip] Sad really!

Do you have any problems with evolution? Scientists can say that they don't know something because they never claimed to know everything. I think the Bible claims to know both the beginning and end of the Universe - that is why it is held to a higher standard. I would be happy to hear you say that you don't know how the universe started! That's what I've been trying to get you to admit from the start!

Now, let's try to keep this discussion from turning into another religious battle - there are enough threads for that.

__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"

- Albert Einstein

MyUncle

Don't get too comfortable with the second law argument.

http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/6e.html

it is being contested currently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2135779.stm

You see when science gets in a jam they just re-think it and re-write it. It's okay that they cannot explain why G-D can't exist. But we are really devious to try to tell them that WE cannot fully understand, explain or prove G-D. It is simply not allowed. Us Religious type are so stupid we have to be held to a higher standard then Scientists. Because they probably know they can't win on an even playing field. and they MUST win!

One day we will all meet our maker and they can explain it to Him! He is fully capable of proving Himself and someday at His choosing He will!

MyUncle

Quote:

I think the Bible claims to know both the beginning and end of the Universe - that is why it is held to a higher standard.

LOL

Read the first verses of Genesis. The Bible makes no attempt to prove anything. It starts on the premise that there is a G-D and he created everything. The rest is his plan for our redemption so that we can be with him for eternity. It is ASSUMED that he exsists right from the start. He obviously feels no need to prove himself at the moment.

So now why the double standard?

Remember that the early sciences were funded by these evil religious types to begin with in an attempt to PROVE a G-D that doesn't wish to be proven just yet! He wants us to choose for ourselves. Some of us will and others apear to be incapable of it.

Null

If evolution doesn't explain where life came from, or where the universe came from. Then what does it prove? That given enough time a monkey will become a man?

Xyress

Quote:

Originally posted by Null If evolution doesn't explain where life came from, or where the universe came from. Then what does it prove? That given enough time a monkey will become a man?

Not even that - only that populations change over time. It is also applied to show that we all came from a common ancestor. "We" meaning the entire animal kingdom.

One of the important things to realize is that man is not the ultimate goal of evolution - there is no goal. We are constantly evolving to adapt to our environment. Animals were not striving to become humans. That just happens to be the current state that we're at after millions of years of evolution.

What evolution predicts is the age and relative complexity of new fossils that have yet to be discovered. If a human fossil was to be found in the same rock layer as a dinosaur fossil, that would disprove the current theory of evolution.

I think this may be over your head, but you should really read a little more about evolution before you decide that it is not true:

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"

- Albert Einstein