To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9044
9043  |  9045
Subject: 
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:20:23 GMT
Viewed: 
745 times
  
Tim Culberson wrote:

So that I am clear on exactly what you are saying, could you please
define for me "Darwinian Evolution", "The Big Bang Theory", and tell me
the process through which you believe the earth has gotten to where it
is today (including how life forms arrived at what they are today)

I've detailed this in previous posts, including the following one where I made a
distinction between evolution as a process and the theory of evolution:

   http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8674

Remember that we are discussing material presented in schools, and so I will reiterate
here that which I was taught in school. The Big Bang theory happened a long, long time
ago and brought the universe into existence. No-one knows what happened before the Big
Bang.

Darwinian Evolution was presented as the method by which life diversifies once it has
been established. This was presented as having happened a significant time in
cosmological terms after the Big Bang.

Darwinian Evolution and the Big Bang theories were never presented as being related to
each other in any way.

BTW, I am not saying that I believe or disbelieve any of this; I am merely stating
what was presented to me at school.

What is it that you disagree with in the Creation theory and why?

To which creation theory do you refer? There are a large number of them.

He suggests this:

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I
suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence
against the general theory of evolution.

I've already explained in painstaking detail why his bet is flawed. However, one more
time. Dr Dino challenges you (you being a propenent of evolution) to make a bet,
apparently concerning evolution, which you will immediately lose. The problem is that
the content of the bet has nothing to do with evolution. The bet he wishes you to
undertake concerns demonstrating the formation of life from non-life, which has
nothing to do with evolution.

It is perfectly possible for me to be convinced of the indisputability of evolution
and not take up his challenge, because the bet has nothing to do with evolution.

Likewise if YOU can PROVE that it is an indisputable fact, then you are
the recipient of $250, 000.

This is not so. He offers me $250,000 if I can  prove that:

"The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as
evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed."

As I've pointed out before, this is a shonky bet. No-one in schools or the scientific
community teaches or believes that evolution was responsible for the creation of the
universe. I shall state it again: universe creation is the big bang, diversification
of life on Earth is by evolution. The two are not related. It is in fact implicit that
Darwinian Evolution *must* come after the creation of the universe, therefore it is
impossible to be the cause of the creation of the universe.

To sum up, he is asking me (assuming I am an evolutionary supporter) to:

1) Prove something I've never actually stated
2) Prove something that is impossible to prove (because of the singularity)

Again, this bet has nothing to do with evolution.

As to the saftey of this bet - his bet does nothing to disprove evolution since it has
nothing to do with evolution. - I keep on repeating myself here but you seem to have a
startling ability to ignore this point. It is simply wrong to say that you can prove
one thing by disproving something totally unrelated, yet this is exactly what Dr Dino
does.

For what it's worth, it bothers me not in the slightest what you believe in; what
bothers me is that Dr. Dino's arguments and wagers are inconsistent.

Does anyone remember Paul Daniels and his "Bunco Booth" ?

Jennifer Clark



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
 
(...) Hmmm....I wish I had seen this earlier. Did you happen to follow the link to "Answers to commonly asked questions about the $250, 000 Offer" ((URL) addresses every point that you mentioned in your previous post so rather than me try and defend (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
 
(...) Please forgive me if this is how you took my writings. I assure you that I intended no trolling at any point (I'll try to use less punctuation :) (...) So that I am clear on exactly what you are saying, could you please define for me (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

78 Messages in This Thread:





















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR