Any of You Desire to Pocket $250K?

baddog1 wrote:

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.

God is the key word in your challenge. God always was and always will be supernatural.

Asking people to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

Basically you are trying to "clean up" the thoroughly fraudulent challenge made by Hovind. Nice try, baddog, but you cannot succeed in this if "Dr. Dino" is your model.

baddog1 wrote:

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

Before that could be done (if it could be done) wouldn't one have to first prove the existance of that particular God?

wandeljw wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

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.

God is the key word in your challenge. God always was and always will be supernatural.

Asking people to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

Basically you are trying to "clean up" the thoroughly fraudulent challenge made by Hovind. Nice try, baddog, but you cannot succeed in this if "Dr. Dino" is your model.

I still do not see a question here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. :wink:

My only question is: Do you expect people to take your challenge seriously, baddog?

Pauligirl wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

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

Before that could be done (if it could be done) wouldn't one have to first prove the existance of that particular God?

Hmm - why? Can anyone prove that their Mom loves them?

baddog1 wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

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

Before that could be done (if it could be done) wouldn't one have to first prove the existance of that particular God?

Hmm - why? Can anyone prove that their Mom loves them?

I think you are confusing your excuses. Love is an emotion, which cannot be proved or disproved (except maybe by the person's actions.) You, on the other hand are talking about something that results in an actual physical entity--first life. Two different things. if you can't prove the the existance of that particular God, how can one prove or disprove its alleged actions? I can ask you to Prove that Mighty CHUXBUTH did not create the very first life form in existence that started the process commonly known as 'evolution'.

You mistake the most important feature of my question. God is the focus of my question, the origin of life is relative, but not the focal point. Belief in God is emotionally based, as is love; there is no confusion.

baddog1 wrote:

You mistake the most important feature of my question. God is the focus of my question, the origin of life is relative, but not the focal point. Belief in God is emotionally based, as is love; there is no confusion.

Are you asking for an emotionally based proof of evolution, baddog?