|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: You Say You Have Proof?! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DavidPryor Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Hoo boy...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7205 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
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:
No, proof, as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. What evolutionary biologists have is evidence.
Okay, any evolutionist would claim they have proof for the theory... DavidPryor writes:
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.
...Evolution isnt scientific, it is a THEORY.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: As above... hoo boy...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7205 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
I like:
quote: Uh huh. Great analysis, "Doctor."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Ooh! Ooh!
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JIM Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rand Al'Thor Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Aw, guys, do try to consider us folks in different timezones! You've not saved any scraps for me at all!
DT
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024