Well, I hope I can post this without being attacked for my beliefs. I know there are many here that believe do not believe in Creationism, but they believe in evolution.
Here is your chance to get $250,000.00 for your beliefs.
Dr. Hovind is offering $250,000.00 for proof of evolution.
I read that site, and it seems to me it’s saying “Prove that evolution is the only possible way the earth could be the way it is.” i.e. Disprove that God created the earth.
Isn’t that impossible?
Let me give you an example.
I offer you $250,000 if you disprove that God created the earth 5 minutes ago, exactly the way it is. How would you disprove that?
As I went over numerous times on LBMB, Hovind is a proven liar. Trusting him to cough up the money based on his interpretation of evidence would be like trusting Satan (your Satan, not ours).
I had not read your posts over there no Dr. Hovind. What are the things you are saying he is a lair about? I have talked to many people in science and most of what he says appears to be supported by most.
Sorry to seem not totally informed. I am not totally knowledgeable on science basis of this discussion.
And
Arnold Winkelried,
I was not claiming to be able to do either. I was simply looking for thoughts on this, and why no one has collected it.
In order to collect, one would have to produce empirical evidence that “The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.”
Not ‘could have come into being’, but “came into being.” Clearly, (a) this has nothing to do with evolution, and (b) we’re never going to have any evidence for whether or not a divine being set off the Big Bang, or whether it happened all by itself.
So his money is safe, by virtue of how he set up the rules, even if God Himself came down and testified to the truth of every word in Origin of Species.
Hovind ties cosmology into his concept of “evolution”. The Big Bang has nothing to do with the variation of populations over time.
Hovind has phrased the questions to only allow absolute proof. Science does not deal in absolute proof, it merely can give the best explanation for observations.
Hovind does not provide the names and qualifications of the judges for this contest. As he is the one picking the panel (if there is any panel besides himself) there is no way to determine the impartiality of the review board.
Hovind declared bankruptcy a few years back. Does he have the money to back this?
The procedure for submitting a challenge is simple. You mail him your arguments, and he mails you back the results. No discussion is involved, nor review of the claims by an outside, independent group.
Hovind is a grandstanding ass.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
For the sake of honesty on my part. If you would come up with some questions (not personally attacking (‘And I know you would not do that, but just so we are clear on the ground rules’) ) I would personally submit them to Dr. Hovind and post the honest and actual response I get from him. I will go as far as to personally call Dr. Hovind and let him know that I do expect an answer and why I am doing this.
Sound fair? I hope so.
Arnold,
I don’t think that is what Dr. Hovind is saying, he appears to me to be looking for empirical evidence (scientific proof). I know the scientific method and I am assuming it could be used here in this case. I am not a scientists, hence I can not clearly without questions state that.
Archangel, please go read the web page to which you provided a link.
first quote
Second quote
So, to repeat what I said in my first post, he is asking you to prove that it is impossible for God to have created the Earth. As I mentioned above, how can you prove something like that?
Now do you agree that what he is asking is impossible?
I could not do it (I don’t believe evolution can be proven) but I would say that you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is the one and only way the universe was created, then you have to accept the POSSIBLITY that God did create the universe.
I would say if it is immpossible to prove evolution THEN it takes FAITH to believe evolution as it takes faith to believe in a Creator (God). So is evolution science or religion? Hummmmm…??
Well, Arch, I’d refer you back to the previous threads in which I discussed Hovind on LBMB, but they kept getting deleted. Funny, that.
Anyway, here we go again.
The Peoria Journal Star (June 25, 1993) had an article about Kent Hovind, (who at that time was offering $10,000). The article stated that Hovind was scheduled to debate “paleontologist Steven (sic) Jay Gould, a Harvard University professor.” Hovind went on to state, “I suspect Gould will back out.”
Hovind apparently had good reason to expect that Gould won’t be there. Gould responded to this claim by saying, “I have never heard of the man and therefore cannot have agreed to anything with him.” Gould went on to comment about “the obvious phony tactic of claiming that he challenged me to a debate when he didn’t, and then claiming that I backed out when I didn’t appear.”
And that’s just the most easily documented of his lies. He has all sorts of tall tales in his video series – and either he is lying about science in them or he is quite ignorant. I’m not sure which is worse.
Sure. And you also have to accept the POSSIBILITY that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe to make it look exactly like She never existed.
Prove I’m wrong.
You might say it, but you’d be wrong. Nobody said it was impossible to provide evidence that evolution is right. It would be, however, impossible to prove it to Hovind and his pals, just as it would be impossible to prove it to you. Why? Because you’ve already made up your mind that evolution is wrong because you would rather believe a book than the scientific evidence around you. You want to live life that way? Fine, but then don’t blame others because they can’t prove something to you. It’s not the others who are at fault.
Science.
Have any more easy questions like that one?
“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
– William Kingdon Clifford
Although true that there are no certainties in life (except death, taxes and that every year a white belt in my dojo will get overzealous and hurt somebody) you have to recognize that possibilities can be so close to 100% or 0% that it simply doesn’t make sense in real terms to call them anything more than 100% or 0%.
I am not an expert on evolution or creation science so I won’t say it evolution has reached that point of probability yet; however, evolution does have some heavy weight behind it.
Foremost, in importance, it has the scientific method. The scientific method doesn’t have to be taken on faith as it is a tried and proven means of studying and understanding the world. The fact that by the scientific method considerable evidence has been found to support evolution and defend it from its honest attackers raises the probability of evolution being true to a very high level.
So, to reiterate, although there are many things that are possible (it is possible that all the oxygen in the room will suddenly go to the ceiling for several minutes and I will suffocate … hey, stop all that cheering!), when speaking in real life I don’t think if is accurate to simply say “It is possible that blank will happen.”
“Glitch … Window, large icons.” - Bob the Guardian
What is the essential epistemological difference between this offer and the offer to pay for proof that a miracle occured, which is tantamount to proving that the miracle could not have been caused by any natural means or by fraud?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
