Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   You Say You Have Proof?!
DavidPryor
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 24 (66285)
11-13-2003 2:59 PM


Alrighty, let me just first say that this is my first post and I am glad to be here. Okay, any evolutionist would claim they have proof for the theory, but if that is true, I have an excellent proposal for you. There is a certain Creation Scientist named Kent Hovind. He is offering 250,000 dollars to ANYONE who can prove the theory of Evolution. This is your chance....take him to court, but you wont, because you cant. You see, Scientific Evolution is an oxymoron, because Evolution isnt scientific, it is a THEORY. A very bad one at that. I find it very insulting that you think that my great somewhat grandparents, are monkeys! Well, I expect to hear all you "smart" evolutionists on the news. If you want Kent Hovinds website, go here:
http://www.livingwaters.com/...utiontruesciencefiction.shtml

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-13-2003 3:06 PM DavidPryor has not replied
 Message 3 by :æ:, posted 11-13-2003 3:13 PM DavidPryor has not replied
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 11-13-2003 3:39 PM DavidPryor has not replied
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2003 8:54 PM DavidPryor has not replied
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2003 3:17 AM DavidPryor has not replied
 Message 14 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 11-14-2003 3:45 AM DavidPryor has not replied
 Message 16 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-14-2003 4:23 AM DavidPryor has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 24 (66288)
11-13-2003 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DavidPryor
11-13-2003 2:59 PM


quote:
There is a certain Creation Scientist named Kent Hovind.
Hoo boy...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DavidPryor, posted 11-13-2003 2:59 PM DavidPryor has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 3 of 24 (66289)
11-13-2003 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DavidPryor
11-13-2003 2:59 PM


My friend, you have a lot to learn...
To begin:
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/250K/challenge.htm
Next...
DavidPryor writes:
Okay, any evolutionist would claim they have proof for the theory...
No, proof, as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. What evolutionary biologists have is evidence.
DavidPryor writes:
...Evolution isnt scientific, it is a THEORY.
Science is all about theories. The Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Electromagnetism, etc... these are all the results of scientific investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DavidPryor, posted 11-13-2003 2:59 PM DavidPryor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-13-2003 3:24 PM :æ: has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 24 (66290)
11-13-2003 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by :æ:
11-13-2003 3:13 PM


quote:
I say, you guys have to get two cells to evolve from the [primordial] soup - of the opposite sex, in the same place, at the same time. It's a big world, you know, cells are kind of small - they've got to find each other.
As above... hoo boy...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by :æ:, posted 11-13-2003 3:13 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by :æ:, posted 11-13-2003 3:46 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 24 (66291)
11-13-2003 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DavidPryor
11-13-2003 2:59 PM


HI David,
Alrighty, let me just first say that this is my first post and I am glad to be here.
Welcome to the site David.
Okay, any evolutionist would claim they have proof for the theory, but if that is true, I have an excellent proposal for you.
This has been flogged to death all over the Internet David. The criteria for claiming the money is absurd.
There is a certain Creation Scientist named Kent Hovind.
Kent is NOT a scientist, he has no formal qualifications whatsoever. Hovind is basically an embarrassment, the guy is brain dead.
He is offering 250,000 dollars to ANYONE who can prove the theory of Evolution.
Kent Hovind doesn't have any money, and the panel of 'experts' are al handpicked by Hovind himself.
Is it the theory of evolution, or a theory of evolution, there are a few you know?
A theory uses facts in an attempt to explain another observable fact.
This is your chance....take him to court, but you wont, because you cant.
People have tried to gain clarification of what exactly Hovind would accept as proof of evolution, Hovind cannot even define what it is he is looking for, he has no idea what a 'kind' is for example.
You see, Scientific Evolution is an oxymoron,
You mean science has not evolved? I thnk you know as much as Hovind does.
it is a THEORY
Define theory for us David.
I find it very insulting that you think that my great somewhat grandparents, are monkeys!
There is not a single evolutionist on the planet that would claim that we came from monkeys, more Hovind amateur science, why do you listen to morons like Hovind?
If you want Kent Hovinds website, go here
I thnk we all know about Hovind, we have almost wet ourselves laughing at his claims many times before. I find his idea of a unicorn especially amusing:
Hovind's unicorn:
Go to a decent university library David, and look at some real science books, not the garbage that Hovind and his 'kind' promote.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DavidPryor, posted 11-13-2003 2:59 PM DavidPryor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by JonF, posted 11-13-2003 4:24 PM Brian has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 6 of 24 (66294)
11-13-2003 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dan Carroll
11-13-2003 3:24 PM


I like:
quote:
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. Think about that.
Uh huh. Great analysis, "Doctor."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-13-2003 3:24 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-13-2003 3:59 PM :æ: has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 24 (66303)
11-13-2003 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by :æ:
11-13-2003 3:46 PM


Ooh! Ooh!
quote:
I did not even know what being a humanist meant. I was only sixteen, and the brain doesn't even start developing until about twenty.
If this is true for Hovnid, it would explain so much!
The conspiracy section is even better. He makes David Icke sound like Al Gore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by :æ:, posted 11-13-2003 3:46 PM :æ: has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 8 of 24 (66312)
11-13-2003 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
11-13-2003 3:39 PM


Kent is NOT a scientist, he has no formal qualifications whatsoever.
Qualifications do not a scientist make. Them as do science are scientists.
Of course, Hovind is not a scientist by any criterion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 11-13-2003 3:39 PM Brian has not replied

JIM
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 24 (66314)
11-13-2003 4:29 PM


quote:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
Stephen Jay Gould will have a hell of a time with Hovinid. It would be like a game of cat and mouse. Hell, any Evoultionist here would love to debate Hovinid one on one in the Great Debate Forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 11-13-2003 4:39 PM JIM has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 10 of 24 (66316)
11-13-2003 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JIM
11-13-2003 4:29 PM


HI,
Stephen Jay Gould will have a hell of a time with Hovinid. It would be like a game of cat and mouse.
Gould would have to participate through John Edward of course!
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JIM, posted 11-13-2003 4:29 PM JIM has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by compmage, posted 11-14-2003 1:58 AM Brian has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 24 (66403)
11-13-2003 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DavidPryor
11-13-2003 2:59 PM


Okay, any evolutionist would claim they have proof for the theory, but if that is true, I have an excellent proposal for you. There is a certain Creation Scientist named Kent Hovind.
What evidence do you have that Hovind would allow himself to be convinced?
Let's put it this way. If all you had to do to avoid losing $250,000 dollars was say "I'm not convinced", wouldn't you say it no matter what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DavidPryor, posted 11-13-2003 2:59 PM DavidPryor has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 12 of 24 (66433)
11-14-2003 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brian
11-13-2003 4:39 PM


Brian writes:
Gould would have to participate through John Edward of course!
In that case, forget about it. The 'messages' John Edward's gets are so broad that some people will think that Gould agrees with Hovind!
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 11-13-2003 4:39 PM Brian has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 13 of 24 (66441)
11-14-2003 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DavidPryor
11-13-2003 2:59 PM


quote:
I find it very insulting that you think that my great somewhat grandparents, are monkeys!
I'm sure they are choked up about how badly their great grandson turned out...but kudos, if you are a monkey and typing your posts, that is not bad writing for a non-human primate...maybe future descendants will have the capacity to learn about evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DavidPryor, posted 11-13-2003 2:59 PM DavidPryor has not replied

Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 24 (66444)
11-14-2003 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DavidPryor
11-13-2003 2:59 PM


It is always funny to hear people say that they are "Creation Scientist" the classification in it self is a contradiction.
Let me explain,
When you imply that there was a Creation you are forced also to imply the existence of a Creator. But, the creator of all of nature must be, quite literally, super-natural (a polite term for Magic) so the base idea of "Creation Science" is that a super-natural entity created the world/universe. But, science specifically deals with the study of natural forces. It is no longer science when you try to explain an event with the super-natural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DavidPryor, posted 11-13-2003 2:59 PM DavidPryor has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 24 (66446)
11-14-2003 4:14 AM


Aw, guys, do try to consider us folks in different timezones! You've not saved any scraps for me at all!
DT

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2003 4:52 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
 Message 18 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-14-2003 9:23 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024