| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The_Sage" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2005 04:45:22 AM |
| Object: |
Re: $250,000 Offer for Proof Evolution is True! |
Reply to article by: "Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com>
Date written: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:42:22 -0800
MsgID:<3b0a8lF6dvpemU1@individual.net>
Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990
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.
Like Kent Hovind's blind faith belief in creationism, we can't know for a fact
that anyone at all has officially and seriously taken Kent up on his offer,
unless we blindly take Kent at his word. But no matter how trustworthy Kent's
word is, it is still just his word. This is where blind faith believers like
Kent make their biggest blunder -- technical and scientific progress isn't about
faith but about doubt. Is there any *HONEST* doubt that the God Kent has faith
in could be make believe? Absolutely yes, but believers are never honest in this
regard. They want you to doubt evolution but blindly believe in creationism.
This is hypocritical and inconsistent.
Let me explain -- pretend for a moment that Kent is right: that, like he says,
creationism and evolution are both based on "belief" and not fact. The
intellectually honest and proper thing to do would be to doubt both beliefs
then, but that is exactly what Kent *avoids*. And why should we take Kent at his
word and doubt the words of scientists? Because Kent says so!
What in the world ever compelled people to come up with the idea of creationism
or evolution to begin with? Let's start with evolution. Anywhere you dig for
fossils in the world, you will always find that the deeper you go, the simpler
the fossils become. What does this tell us? It tells us that as time has gone
on, animals have become more complex with time. Creationism tells us in a
storytale that all animals, simple and complex, came into being all at once.
Obviously one of these accounts doesn't fit the facts.
In keeping with the simple-to-complex rule, the genes of the more complex
animals in one layer of sediment reflect the genetics of the more simpler
animals in the layer below it. For example, amphibians have many genes in common
with fish, yet much of the fish genes are deactivated. Reptiles have many
(deactivated) genes in common with the amphibians but they have fewer (yet still
deactivated) genes in common with fish. What does this tell us? The same exact
story that the fossils tell us: that animals have changed in time from simple to
more complex by "borrowing" genetic code from a common ancestor, adding just
enough material to make it work differently and then deactivating the rest of
the useless parts of the borrowed genes. As time goes on, the useless parts of
the genes are discarded. Creationism tells us in a storytale that God created
everything brand new, from scratch, perfect in every way. Creationism tells us
that nothing was useless or hodge-podge or kludged together. Again, one of these
accounts obviously doesn't fit the facts.
The layers of fossil evidence also point out something else: that the change
from simple to complex comes in very small steps over a very long time. Nothing
ever happened in one day. So the odds of watching a fish change into a dog in
one day are zero. Kent Hovind unfairly and unreasonably as possible tries to
overwhelm any honest respondant by hinting that he would expect you to trivially
cover all the billions of years and millions of changes between the time fish
first appeared to the time that dogs first appeared, as if they were directly
related instead of being distantly related.
All it takes is proof that just one species has changed into another species to
prove that evolution takes place and not only do we have the millions of fossils
and mitochrondrial DNA sequencing as evidence (as alluded to above), we have
even had the extremely rare opportunity of observing speciation take place in
modern times (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html), although
I suspect that Kent will come up with some excuse to disregard the science of
genetics just as easily as he disregarded the science of evolution.
So from beginning to end, with creationism we have nothing to explain and
nothing to observe, only just pure deaf, dumb, and blind faith to act as our
guide, whereas with evolution, we at least have the rock solid facts of fossils
as our reference point. And unlike creationism, there are no hidden agendas in
evolution. If you don't feel like believing in evolution, then go ahead and
doubt it all you want because there will be no so-called loving scientists to
send you to Hell for not believing, unlike what storytale of creationism
ultimately leads to.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================
.
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: $250,000 Offer for Proof Evolution is True! |
01 Apr 2005 11:43:05 AM |
|
|
"The_Sage" <The_Sage@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1m2p41596f8ia0eb8t1vjd6v8pc55dqv6q@4ax.com...
I suspect that Kent will come up with some excuse to disregard the science
of
genetics just as easily as he disregarded the science of evolution.
For the purposes of his 'challenge', he does - quite clearly.
I quote:
"Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not
qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their
time. ... Even a new species is not proof for evolution as the offer calls
for."
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: $250,000 Offer for Proof Evolution is True! |
01 Apr 2005 11:50:25 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "Midjis" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk>
Date written: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:43:05 +0000 (UTC)
MsgID:<d2jc49$1ru$4@titan.btinternet.com>
I suspect that Kent will come up with some excuse to disregard the science of
genetics just as easily as he disregarded the science of evolution.
For the purposes of his 'challenge', he does - quite clearly.
I quote:
"Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not
qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their
time. ... Even a new species is not proof for evolution as the offer calls
for."
I listed three species, not one.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: $250,000 Offer for Proof Evolution is True! |
02 Apr 2005 12:00:06 PM |
|
|
"The_Sage" <The_Sage@msn.com> wrote :
I listed three species, not one.
Meaning that he would simply reject three cases rather than one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: $250,000 Offer for Proof Evolution is True! |
01 Apr 2005 01:53:38 PM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
"The_Sage" <The_Sage@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1m2p41596f8ia0eb8t1vjd6v8pc55dqv6q@4ax.com...
I suspect that Kent will come up with some excuse to disregard the science
of
genetics just as easily as he disregarded the science of evolution.
For the purposes of his 'challenge', he does - quite clearly.
I quote:
"Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not
qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their
time. ... Even a new species is not proof for evolution as the offer calls
for."
Plus, as I recall, you also have to "prove" the Big Bang and abiogenesis,
plus show that evolution is not only true, the the only POSSIBLE way
things could have come out the way they did. Kinda stacks the deck
a little.
Best, Marc
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: $250,000 Offer for Proof Evolution is True! |
01 Apr 2005 11:51:50 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: Marc Satterwhite <mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu>
Date written: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:53:38 -0500
MsgID:<424D5007.56DF4AAF@athena.louisville.edu>
I suspect that Kent will come up with some excuse to disregard the science of
genetics just as easily as he disregarded the science of evolution.
For the purposes of his 'challenge', he does - quite clearly.
I quote:
"Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not
qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their
time. ... Even a new species is not proof for evolution as the offer calls
for."
Plus, as I recall, you also have to "prove" the Big Bang and abiogenesis,
plus show that evolution is not only true, the the only POSSIBLE way
things could have come out the way they did. Kinda stacks the deck
a little.
Yes, more logical fallacies from Kent, since his "challenge" is to prove
evolution, not abiogenesis and cosomology -- which have nothing to do with
evolution.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
