Any of You Desire to Pocket $250K?

Unless you stack the deck, evolution is already shown to exist.

1. can a species become a seperate species and unable to breed with other progeny of a common ancestor? (The answer is yes and it has been observed.)
2. Can you trace DNA to show common ancestors? (Yes)
3. Can you mathematically show that it is possible (and probable) for all life presently on the planet to arrive from a single cell billions of years ago?

Evolution existing is seperate from asking whether God exists. Evolution happens. Whether God directs it is a seperate question Yet many confuse the question of God with the evolution question.

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).

I fully understand the likelihood of finding a "fair panel of scientists" no matter what the issue. I was however interested in your response to Hovind's challenge that included scientists on the panel. As scientists hold the key to evolutionists theories - it interested me to see your negative response to members of the science community that you rely on for your own beliefs.

You are incorrect. My objection was that the members of the panel were hand picked by someone with a vested interest in which side one this debate. I had no objective to the fact that members of the scientific community were on the panel-- as long as they are not hand picked from the very small number of scientists who hold his point of view.

I am in baddog. If you put up $250,000 and we provide a fair panel of scientists, I woul d be happy to take your money.

((to the others, please don't point out to baddog that there is a reason their is no fair challenge of this type))

Hovind is dishonestly mixing in issues of origin of life and origin of the universe. Evolutionary theory deals with the transformation and diversification of organisms over time. Evolution deals with the origin of species but not with the origin of life or the origin of the universe.

If you want an answer to Hovind's challenge, could you restate it in a more honest way, baddog?

wandeljw wrote:

Hovind is dishonestly mixing in issues of origin of life and origin of the universe. Evolutionary theory deals with the transformation and diversification of organisms over time. Evolution deals with the origin of species but not with the origin of life or the origin of the universe.

If you want an answer to Hovind's challenge, could you restate it in a more honest way, baddog?

I could; however I am pretty sure there would be pot-shots taken at my methodology. That is why I posed the following question in an earlier post:

"So, for those of you who objected to the rules that Hovind set forth for this issue - what rules would you deem as fair and appropriate? If the $250K was still on the table - what rules would be 'fair'"?

You are making a couple of logical errors bad dog that need to be addressed before trying to answer your questions logically.

1) Science is not anti-religion. There are a couple of science clowns (Richard Dawkins is a very obnoxious example) who try to make science anti-religion, and there are a couple of religious people who try to make points by ascribing an anti-religion bias to science. Science as a process is not anti-religion and neither is science as a community committed to following a rational process.

2) The theory of evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. This is not because they are anti-religion (in fact many of them are religious), it is because there is a vast amount of evidence for evolution.

Ironically, the evolution debate happened in the scientific community and was resolved (and yes for scientists it has been resolved) decades ago. This process of debate and resolution happened in Christian countries with Christian cultures and scientists and sponsors who were Christians. In spite of this they were convinced by the facts that evolution was the only way to explain the facts they observed.

baddog1 wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Hovind is dishonestly mixing in issues of origin of life and origin of the universe. Evolutionary theory deals with the transformation and diversification of organisms over time. Evolution deals with the origin of species but not with the origin of life or the origin of the universe.

If you want an answer to Hovind's challenge, could you restate it in a more honest way, baddog?

I could; however I am pretty sure there would be pot-shots taken at my methodology. That is why I posed the following question in an earlier post:

"So, for those of you who objected to the rules that Hovind set forth for this issue - what rules would you deem as fair and appropriate? If the $250K was still on the table - what rules would be 'fair'"?

In order to be "fair", the question needs to be stated in an honest way. I was hoping you yourself could state a question about evolution in a more honest way than Hovind did, baddog.

It just occurred to me that I may be looking at 'evolution' in a different light than is intended on here. (Which is disconcerting for a mostly-literal person like me!)

I agree with you on #'s 1&2 and am undecided on #3. Succinctly - I believe that life was created and evolution (as we know it) is part of the 'master' plan so to speak.

My $250K question: Prove that God did not create the very first life form in existence that started the process commonly known as 'evolution'.

Your question is about the "origin of life". Evolutionary biology does not address that question.

Furthermore, your question involves the supernatural (scientific inquiry deals with natural phenomena and natural processes only).

You are also asking people to "prove a negative".

I don't mean this personally, however the 'supernatural' angle is really non-productive and largely incorrect. What is considered to be supernatural today will quite possibly be commonplace tomorrow. ie: People who can recover blurry sight, correct hearing loss, fly into outer space, land on the moon, perform surgery through a 3/4" incision, discover that the earth is round, etc. And it is mostly the forward-thinking scientists who would not accept that something is supernatural although the present evidence and populus may have been telling them so.

My $250K question: Prove that God did not create the very first life form in existence that started the process commonly known as 'evolution'.

Baddog,

I think the term "supernatural" is appropriate-- it simply means above and beyond the laws of nature.

God is above and beyond the laws of nature, no?