Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000

*ehem* which isn't going to happen... I would equally give thousands if someone could 'prove' it as 'fact'.-------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-10-2002]

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]

--Just wondering, where is the rebutal?"You need to see a rubutal? For that?"
--ofcourse, to the creationist, if this is true, its no surprize, but to the evolutionist, without explination (rebutal) it is a fatal blow. You can explain it right, without saying 'oh well it has to be a fraud'.found the rebutal , hey the rebutal was written by the same guy as the one who did the other one right?

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]

"We don`t need to he does well enough all on his own....."
--Lets see...could it be...conjector? you need evidence to back you up. What has he said that is outragous?---------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]

"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. "
--I've watched some of his debates....to say the least...their hallarious. I will admit I could wonder if he hasn't shown any of his possible loss-debates, if there is any *shrugs*."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."
--That would be wrong, I don't look at a creationist and say everythign he says is right, and everything the evolutionist I am suspicious of. I look at the evidence and I come to my own logical conclusions, what anyones interperetation of this evidence is their own buisness, though the creationists have their foundational model, and evolutionists have theirs.----------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]

"Evolutionists don't say that science proves evolution, either. It supports evolution overwhelmingly, but proof? You need to go elsewhere for that."
--Its about time an evolutionist steps up and says that evolution is not fact (this is what you must prove to get your $250,000 and is the whole point behind Kent's offer). As for saying that the evidence supports evolution overwhelmingly, I say the same about creation....their both valid to your own interperetation, though It seems that you would have to have alot more faith to believe in evolution than creation (opinion don't fret! "I started one day ago and no one has collected, either."
--Really? What are you offering and what must I prove (I've actually never seen an offer such as Kent's as an offer toward creationists)"Why shut him up? He does evolution a great service."
--Its amazing on how many people seem to be laughing a great deal when Hovind isn't looking.."On another post you ask why we are diverting attention from his offer. Here is the connection: He probably will use the same committee to judge any submissions as he did on the hoax that he fell for. Second, I wouldn't trust a guy who commits tax fraud to pay me my $250,000."
--Whats up with the Tax fraud, I've heard tons about this from evolutionists, but im just wondering wheres the proof that he did...just wondering.-----------

"No, no, no.You still don't understand how scientists use the words "fact" and "proof".Evolution is a fact, because we observe and infer it in nature."
--I think we are getting a missinterperetation of the word 'fact' and how it is used, I mean to infer a 'fact' as something that is real, no question about it, it happens and is proovable. Such as gravity, we know it is there and that it is a true force of nature, there may be new discoverys on how gravity works and how to defy it or even switch it around or whatnot, but the context is still there, gravity is what holds us on the ground. The earth circles the sun is fact, because we see it, observe it and prove it by mathematics and sciences that are not based on any assumption but is hard science. That evolution happens I believe we are also missunderstanding. The fact of evolution is that we simply see changes in nature which is evolution per se. But if you wan't to say we are brought about from and are ancestors of simpler forms that is not 'fact' because we cannot directly prove it, it is theory. This is why no one is going to collect that 250k and it is Hovinds whole point."We aren't simply talking about different scientific interpretations of the same evidence, because Creation "science" isn't scientific, even though it tries to look like science."
--I have consistantly replied to your missinterperpretations of creation science, and I must say have failed to prove it so, creation science is no more religion than the ToE."Hey you can believe any kind of religion that you want to, of course, but please don't try to call it science."
--We are not discussing religion here, If I was I would be a fool to say it so in an evolution vs creation debate. The science and the faith is not in one, though the science in the long run upholds the faith."Oh, they laugh when he's looking, too."
--Yeah I know, you should see how funny it is when they don't know what to say, that is why they are laughing . You should watch that guys debates, ...their just halarious.------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-13-2002]

"For some of Dr Hovinds "Truth"
--Omg, I guess I would have to say it would be a mistake to post that link, I found that about 2 months ago and started a response on them, but I stoped after about the so-called 'lie' #146 because I decided that anyone reading it would simply not think much of it just as the onyuke man or whatever his name was. Buddika is extreamly ignorant and makes himself look quite stupid all threw my reading of it. I have some of the rebutal if you would like to see it, I only got to about part G or something.------------

"Induldge me."--http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...tionistLies-PartA.htm
--http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...tionistLies-PartB.htm
--http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...tionistLies-PartC.htm--Mind you, some few of my views on some cosmology aspects have changed over the months since I started the response, I posted A, B, and C they are alot of space and I don't get very much bandwidth as it is.-------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-17-2002]

"Hovind's whole point is that he is shady. And a nut case. And buys his PhD's from diploma mills. This is why he doesn't know anything about science."
--Why is he a nutcase, if he is so nutty?"You have "consistently replied" to me concerning the scientific nature of Creationism, true. The problem is, you respond with non-responses, such as "Yes, it is too science". You do not SUBSTANTIVELY respond to my SPECIFIC points regarding the ways in which Creationism violates the tenets of scientific inquiry. You just say, basically, "IS TOO, IS TOO, IS TOO!!"--I have given reasons why your assertions about creation science and your support are wrong and missunderstandings of the creation science concept, you can look somewhere else and argue with AiG or ICR beliefs all you want but it isn't going to do anything really."You (and others) are very difficult to pin down on specific points when asked directly, and since you (and others) do not demonstrate an understanding of what science is, and how Creationism is a clear departure from science, I have started a new topic in this regard entitled "Why Creationism isn't scientific."
--I'll have to go there, Creation science deals with the definition of science, naturalistic mechenisms."No, you have it backwards."
--I do?"The "faith" in Creation "science" is the all-important, overarching concept that governs what is said, done, and concluded."
--Who did you talk to? The little skeptic again, Faith and Creation Science are differentiated among the two. There you have faith, and you have Creation science, Faith, Creation science, not the Faith of Creation science."The ICR's motto is, "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry". It doesn't say anything at all about science, research, or learning. It's a MINISTRY, which clearly means that it is most interested in promoting it's CHRISTIAN RELIGION, and not in scientific inquiry."
--And your point is? Like I said earlier, you can argue with ICR all you want but it isn't going to do really anything while they arent here to discuss with you."Before one is accepted as a graduate student into the ICR's program, one must display, "Evidence of personal integrity, good character. and agreement with the ICR purpose, goals, and tenets." In other words, before you are even taught anything, you must agree AHEAD of time that the ICR's particular interpretation of the Bible is correct. They also require all students to be Christian, which further points out their disinterest in actually doing science, and their great interest in promoting their religious agenda."
--Ok thats great..."Here are the tenets of this supposedly "scientific" institute, and they are fundamentally faith-based."
--um...Ok?"From the tenets of the ICR:"
--Again?"So, Creation "science" violates what is arguably two of the most basic and important tenets of real science; empiricism and tentativity."
--You can argue (again) with ICR and their tenants all you want, but its pointless, Creation science is consistant with the definition of science and nothing less. I'm not trying to prove this right, you are trying to prove it wrong.(trying to catch up! -------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-17-2002]

"That is a probably a good thing for Mr Hovind....."
--I'm beginning to wonder why atleast 98% of the comments against Hovind are Jokes and not scientific credibility. (Here comes another Joke)-------------