Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000

I have always been amazed ever since I have looked at his video's and do searches on him on search engines on how many thousands of people that are constantly trying to find every single little flaw in his work and seminars, I even remember Buddika's 300 Creationist lies that I started a rebutal on and wow I could not believe how ignorant that guy was. The fact still remains, that the no matter how 'facticious' you or any other scientist will take it, it still requires a belief to one degree or another. There is one difference that I would do in his 250,000$ offer, get together 30 major creationists, and 30 major evolutionists and have the debate of a century! With a couple years of preperation and refining and have them all go head to head discussing and debating for 14 hours a day for like a week, though it would be slightly exhausting it would be a fascinating challenge, maybe I could set something like that up in a couple decades .------------

​

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

"Well, Kent has never taken up my offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove creationism, either.... That's a fact!"
--That is the whole point...both are beliefs because they are not 'facts'.------------

​

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

"Well as creationists would be biased against the evidence and atheist/agnostics biased towards it non-creationist theists would seem like a good compromise..."
--Its simply dangerous to call 'creationists' biased, I offer my whole open discussion in these threads and love to talk about anything to do with the debate. If you wan't to point out a single person that you think is bias that would be much more reasonable. Creationists are not bias of evolutionist evidence, there is always an interperetation in that evidence as I have seen time and time again."Also, as scientific proof would be presented, the panel members should be scientists not lawyers, theologians etc..."
--I agree."In short the panel should not just be Dr (from a diploma mill I might add) Dino and his ideological nearest and dearest...."
--If you wanna say it like that I would have to be yes, but I should say there should always be evolutionists present well intouch with the information they present to defend their views.-----------

​

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

1) It is presented as the best possible naturalistic explanation of certain data namely:
--I would argue that it is the 'best' possible explination, it just matters on your interperetation. The Big bang (if you wish to call it as such) could have been completely different in the way we see it as today, ie, the cosmogeny of it, when it happend, and the initial conditions are unknown to science.2) Hubble redshift
--There are many explanations of the hubble redshift while little is known about it creationist cosmologists have the interperetation on the causes of the red/blue shifts. One possible explination is the 'stretching of the heavens' as it indicates in the bible, as it is believed the physics of the red shift is a cause of a sort of 'Doppler effect' in light. (Im no cosmologist though!)not as a fact...
--Which is the reason you can't get that 250K-----------

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....
--Just wondering, where is the rebutal?----------

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Say what you want about Kent Hovind.

​

The fact is no one can collect the $250,000.

​

"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief. "

​

Evolution is just a belief.

---

In the Nineteenth Century there was a Flat Earth Society bet of a similar nature. A British flat earther offered so many thousands of pounds (which was apparently collectible) if anyone could prove that the earth was round. One Scottish scientist was foolish enough to take on the bet and sued to have the debt enforced. I can't exactly remember the outcome of the case, but IIRC, the poor Scot went mad trying to get the money he thought was due him.SLD

"Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. "You can even submit your evidence in writting without a debate! Yet no one has collected it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
"Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. "

​

You can even submit your evidence in writting without a debate! Yet no one has collected it.

​

---

Persons wishing to collect the $1 million dollars may submit their evidence to me and my committe in writing or go for a public presentation, also. No one has tried yet!By the way, how do we know that Kent has the money. Wasn't he convicted of tax fraud or something? My money is just a good as his, by the way.

joz:
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....TC
--Just wondering, where is the rebutal?You need to see a rubutal? For that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
joz:
It is also worth noting the april fools hoax he fell for....
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.htm

​

I thought it was pretty funny as is but the thought of Dr Dino falling for it really made me laugh....

​

TC
--Just wondering, where is the rebutal?

​

You need to see a rubutal? For that?

---

The rebutal:
http://www.nmsr.org/april_fool.htmlMoose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edge:
[b] Persons wishing to collect the $1 million dollars may submit their evidence to me and my committe in writing or go for a public presentation, also. No one has tried yet! [/QUOTE][/b]Creationists don't claim their theory can be proven by science. Evolution does. [b]
[QUOTE] By the way, how do we know that Kent has the money. Wasn't he convicted of tax fraud or something? My money is just a good as his, by the way. [/b][/QUOTE]He started the bet 10 years ago with $10,000. No one has collected it.I'm sure he has the money. But even if he didn't have the money, don't you think evolutionist would prove evolution to him just to shut him up?

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
The rebutal:
http://www.nmsr.org/april_fool.html

​

Moose

---

Also given that I found it here http://www.nmsr.org/HOVIND.HTM#Proverbs
(note I have posted this link twice on this very thread )Could it be that someone didnt bother reading it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
joz:
It is also worth noting the april fools hoax he fell for....
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.htm

​

I thought it was pretty funny as is but the thought of Dr Dino falling for it really made me laugh....

​

TC
--Just wondering, where is the rebutal?

​

You need to see a rubutal? For that?

---

I think it's pretty funny everyone trys to change the subject away from DrDino's bet.I guess if you can't prove evolution and collect $250,000 the next best thing to try would be to make DrDino out to look stupid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
I think it's pretty funny everyone trys to change the subject away from DrDino's bet.

​

I guess if you can't prove evolution and collect $250,000 the next best thing to try would be to make DrDino out to look stupid.

---

We don`t need to he does well enough all on his own.....

I see that belief in Creationism has forced some of our Creationist friends to express faith in the honesty of a man investigated for IRS tax fraud, simply because they want to believe that his offer is valid. This isn't surprising, because despite his dubious background and the fact that he fell for an April 1st joke many Creationists consider him to be a legitimate expert in CvsE debate.This is a manifestation of the Creationist Truth Filter, in which anything a fellow Creationist says is automatically honest, upstanding, and correct; and whatever an evolutionist says is suspect at the least.