Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Well, Kent has never taken up my offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove creationism, either.... That's a fact!

---

Creation isn't in the text books at school. Why is the big bang put in the text books when it's just a theory that can't be proven. It is presented as fact. [b] [QUOTE] Creationism is not even a belief. It is a wish.
[/b][/QUOTE]Kent is offering for anyone to prove the earth is millions of years old, and no one can do it. Believe the earth is millions of years old is a wish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
a)will the panel consist of a bunch of dyed in the wool creationists?

​

Who would you suggest the panel consist of?

---

\Do you usually answer questions with questions? In fact, the panel would be made up of dyed in the wool creationists, with Kent having and overriding veto power. Hardly a true test of the validity of evolution. The challenge is a red herring. It goes over well with the scientifically untutored, but has little to do with reality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Who would you suggest the panel consist of?

---

Well as creationists would be biased against the evidence and atheist/agnostics biased towards it non-creationist theists would seem like a good compromise...Also, as scientific proof would be presented, the panel members should be scientists not lawyers, theologians etc...In short the panel should not just be Dr (from a diploma mill I might add) Dino and his ideological nearest and dearest....

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Creation isn't in the text books at school. Why is the big bang put in the text books when it's just a theory that can't be proven. It is presented as fact.

---

1) It is presented as the best possible naturalistic explanation of certain data namely:2) Hubble redshiftnot as a fact...

In these discussions, the word prove gets thrown around an awful lot. This is fine as long as everyone understands that in science the word prove is just shorthand for, "Provide sufficient evidence to persuade a significant proportion of the relevant scientific community."The obvious question to then consider is, "Who is the relevant scientific community?" Those on the evolution side do not regard Creationists as part of any scientific community, while Creationists believe they are well on their way to building effective communities of scientists in the relevant fields. Both sides believe the other has an inappropriate bias.The problem with the various challenges is that they never get off the ground. While there is never any shortage of those accepting the challenge, there seems a significant problem in getting the acceptance accepted. Agreement on terms and judges is extremely problematic.Even if one of these challenges did somehow go forward, I hope no one has any illusions about what would happen. The best those accepting the challenge could reasonably hope for is a draw. Even if the impossible happened, the losers would in various ways call foul and nothing would be settled.This thread has made me think a bit about how agreement would be reached on judges for the challenge. Since Creationism isn't even science in the opinion of evolutionists, they're unlikely to agree on a panel made up of Creationists. Even a panel including just one Creationist might be considered a problem. And Creationists believe evolutionists are willfully misinterpreting the evidence to forward a humanist philosophy they find personally appealing. Seems like a deadlock to me.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Well, Kent has never taken up my offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove creationism, either.... That's a fact!

​

Red:
Creation isn't in the text books at school. Why is the big bang put in the text books when it's just a theory that can't be proven. It is presented as fact.

---

So, you agree that no one can win my challenge?

quote:

---

Edge:
Creationism is not even a belief. It is a wish.

​

Red:
Kent is offering for anyone to prove the earth is millions of years old, and no one can do it. Believe the earth is millions of years old is a wish.

---

Wrong, he is offering to pay anyone who can prove evolution. And no, it is not a belief. There is abundant evidence to support it. You may wish to ignore that evidence but you can't make it go away.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-11-2002]

It is also worth noting the april fools hoax he fell for.... http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.htmI thought it was pretty funny as is but the thought of Dr Dino falling for it really made me laugh....

LOL, Kent is as gullible as he is a liar.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
a)will the panel consist of a bunch of dyed in the wool creationists?

​

Who would you suggest the panel consist of?

---

​

\

​

Do you usually answer questions with questions? In fact, the panel would be made up of dyed in the wool creationists, with Kent having and overriding veto power. Hardly a true test of the validity of evolution. The challenge is a red herring. It goes over well with the scientifically untutored, but has little to do with reality.

​

---

According to Kent that's not what the panel consist of."A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented. "What do you have to show what the committee consists of other than your oppinion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
LOL, Kent is as gullible as he is a liar.

​

---

He's not the one printing evolution in textbooks as fact when it's never been proven.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edge:
[B] Wrong, he is offering to pay anyone who can prove evolution. And no, it is not a belief. There is abundant evidence to support it. You may wish to ignore that evidence but you can't make it go away.

​

Oh, well I guess no one wants $250,000 then. Hmm, makes sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
According to Kent that's not what the panel consist of.

​

"A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented. "

​

What do you have to show what the committee consists of other than your oppinion?

---

I guess if you had taken a look at these first time round you would already know.... http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_bogus_challenge.htmhttp://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_phony_challenge.htmhttp://www.nmsr.org/HOVIND.HTM#ProverbsFor someone who feels confident enough to stump up $250,000 he sure declines a lot of offers to debate with his detractors.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
He's not the one printing evolution in textbooks as fact when it's never been proven.

---

Red nothing in science is given as fact it is just the best naturalistic explanation of observed phenomena......For example Newtonian mechanics is very accurate.... unless what your looking at gets to small or goes to fast (which is where Quantum mechanics and Relativity come in)..... So while Newtonian mechanics is a good approximation it is not a *Fact*......(good enough to get man to the moon at any rate)....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[B]Say what you want about Kent Hovind.The fact is no one can collect the $250,000.[/QUOTE]You are correct that no one can collect the money. That's because it is a RIGGED CONTEST. It isn't LEGITIMATE. Hovind has made the rules ambiguous and disingenuous, which shows him to lack any INTEGRITY.Hold such a poor excuse for a Christian up to view if you want, but let me tell you that it only hurts your "side".

quote:

---

He's not the one printing evolution in textbooks as fact when it's never been proven.

---

The word "fact" is being used in different ways in this conversation.The fact of evolution is observed. We see it happening. We also infer it's occurence in the past, through the fossil record, morphological evidence, and genetic evidence. The theory of evolution is the overarching explanitory framework that makes sense all of these inferences and observations. The theory is subject to change in the light of new and/or more reliable evidence.Facts are just data points. The theory unites all of these data points into a coherent picture of what is going on.Redstang, I am going to post a link to a very good essay which explains that Evolution is both fact and theory.Please, please, surprise and delight all of us and actually READ the link, and put a little EFFORT into understanding it. Even if you don't agree with it, at least try to understand it.Enjoy. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html