Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000

Ah, Kent Hovind (aka "Dr. Dino").One of "scientific" Creationism's greatest embarrasments.Why, you ask?Because he is a wacko nutcase, that's why!Here is a very informative and funny website devoted to Dr. Dino. Be extra sure to check out the photograph of the impressive facade of the building that houses "Patriot University", which is where the dear doctor ordered-um, er, I mean EARNED after long and careful study, his PhD!Also click on the link above the picture to read the story of someone who actually attempted to claim the unclaimable prize that the dear doctor puts forth.Not surprisingly, the dear doctor has set up his own rules, rather than emperical, scientific rules, on what he will accept as "evidence for evolution", so the prize is unwinnable.A quote from one of the people who attempted to win the prize:

quote:

---

However, on closer examination, and when the initiator of the offer is pressed for specificity, it transpires that he is demanding (in a most circuitous manner, as will be shown below) evidence for nebulous claims that lie beyond the orb of pure empiricism. More sinister is the revelation that he who has chosen the aforesaid committee will look at the evidence first and decide what submissions go to the committee at all, and to what members of the committee at that. The result is that he intends to act as a judge in his own case, a case that he has made impossible to prove, and the 'jury' for which may not exist, at least not one that conforms to the image presented.

---

Enjoy! http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html

Hent Hovind's credentials, from a list of Creationists with questionable credentials: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html"Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist who gives frequent public lectures on evolution and creationism. He is well-known for repeating the claim that the remains of a basking shark found by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand were actually those of a recently deceased plesiosaur.Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's
faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3]."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[B]Say what you want about Kent Hovind.The fact is no one can collect the $250,000.[/QUOTE]You are correct that no one can collect the money. That's because it is a RIGGED CONTEST. It isn't LEGITIMATE. Hovind has made the rules ambiguous and disingenuous, which shows him to lack any INTEGRITY.Hold such a poor excuse for a Christian up to view if you want, but let me tell you that it only hurts your "side".

quote:

---

He's not the one printing evolution in textbooks as fact when it's never been proven.

---

The word "fact" is being used in different ways in this conversation.The fact of evolution is observed. We see it happening. We also infer it's occurence in the past, through the fossil record, morphological evidence, and genetic evidence. The theory of evolution is the overarching explanitory framework that makes sense all of these inferences and observations. The theory is subject to change in the light of new and/or more reliable evidence.Facts are just data points. The theory unites all of these data points into a coherent picture of what is going on.Redstang, I am going to post a link to a very good essay which explains that Evolution is both fact and theory.Please, please, surprise and delight all of us and actually READ the link, and put a little EFFORT into understanding it. Even if you don't agree with it, at least try to understand it.Enjoy. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation: "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

---

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.From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

---

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

​

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

​

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit."

---

​

---

"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"

---

quote:

---

(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!

---

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.Hey you can believe any kind of religion that you want to, of course, but please don't try to call it science.

quote:

---

"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..

---

Oh, they laugh when he's looking, too.

​

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

[QUOTE]"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.[QUOTE] We actually do observe evolution AND speciation, as you have been shown many times. I'll post the link again: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.htmlAlso, read "Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner and the new companion book to the PBS series, "Evolution", by Carl Zimmer, by the same name.Also, you are wrong that we have observed gravity directly. No one has ever directly observed gravity. We only observe the effects of gravity and have inferred it's existence and mechanism. Gravity is understood to be the result of the curving of space, and we certainly haven't seen that directly; only the inferred evidence for it.So, by your logic of only considering scientific theories which are directly observed to be "facts", you don't think that gravity is a fact.We can't directly observe electrons, quarks, or neutrinos either, so do you think that these sub-atomic particles aren't factual, either, because we have only ever inferred their existence and not seen them directly?We understand the ToE and it's proposed mechanisms FAR better than we understand gravity.

quote:

---

This is why no one is going to collect that 250k and it is Hovinds whole point.

---

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.

quote:

---

"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.

---

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!!"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."

quote:

---

"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.

---

No, you have it backwards.The "faith" in Creation "science" is the all-important, overarching concept that governs what is said, done, and concluded.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.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.Here are the tenets of this supposedly "scientific" institute, and they are fundamentally faith-based. http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htmFrom the tenets of the ICR:"The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."By definition, science is NOT based upon revelation. EVER. It is based upon observation. By definition, science is NOT based upon any notion of "absolute truth". It is based upon tentativity, or the temnet that all ideas are subject to revision in the light of new evidenceSo, Creation "science" violates what is arguably two of the most basic and important tenets of real science; empiricism and tentativity.

What has he said that is outrageous??Here you go...This person was persistent enough to fially get ahold of a copy of Hovind's "thesis". Here's the overview. Pretty embarrasing for Hovind: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htmSource: http://home1.gte.net/dmadh/hovind6.htmI did not even know what being a humanist meant. I was only sixteen, and the brain doesn't even start developing until about twenty.I believe the Great Pyramid was built to be the Bible in stone. The Egyptians did not build it.The purpose if the New Age Movement is to get everybody together under one government, one religion, and then institute Lucifer to be the
leader.When God first made the world, there was not a genetic load. Therefore, they married sisters in the first generation, and in the second generation, they married cousins. After that, they were diversified enough to be no problem.Some people think that [Cain] became a giant. That is a very real possibility, but we don't know for sure.There has been research that indicates nearly all homosexuals come from families that have a weak father figure, and a dominate mother. I
believe that research shows that there is a social link where the children are raised to be wimps or whatever.Is it true that a chromosome has been found that proves that homosexuals are born with the inability to choose their life style? [.....] I do not buy the so-called chromosome link, and I believe that research has been shown to be erroneous. There never was a chromosome link. [emphasis added]Some people say that demons came in human form and cohabited with women and begat half demon and half human, and their offspring were
men of renown; people that were able to great things. They were supposed to have had wings on their feet, and to be able to fly. This is where the Greek mythology originated, which may not be too far fetched.Therefore, there may not be any other stars in the solar system that have planets around them. [emphasis added]If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights?
Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour. [Einstein must be turning in his grave]..... a lizard laid an egg, and a chicken hatched out. That is the general idea behind punctuated equilibrium.What I think happened is, the hippies of the sixties are now the college professors. They are still radical Communists who still want to destroy this country. One of the things they must do to be successful is bankrupt this country, make the currency useless, and put the people in poverty. Environmental issues are a great way to bankrupt the country.The Pogue carburetor was designed back in the 1930's, and it allowed a vehicle to get well over two hundred miles per gallon on any vehicle.
[urban legend]The ACLU (The American Communist Lawyers Association, no, I'm sorry, it's the Anti Christian Lawyers Association)As far as cloning goes, it is defiantly [sic] not being done, and probably would be an impossibility. [Said circa 1996]Stanley Deyo, a Christian, is a genius who wrote the book ["The Cosmic Conspiracy"]. Way over my head. Deyo says that there are two kinds
of UFOs. First, there are US government owned and operated UFOs. That really got my attention. The US government has UFOs? He said that
the second kind is the satanically - owned and operated UFOs. He says that Sattan has always used that mode of transportation to get around
because the devil can only be at one place at one time, whereas God is all places at all times. That may be far fetched, so please do not accuse me of saying this is true. I do not know if it is true, but it is an interesting theory.God made the stars in order to be a light upon the earth.There is definitely a conspiracy, but I don't think that it is a human conspiracy. I don't believe there is a smoke filled room where a group of men get together, and decide to teach evolution in all the schools. I believe that it is at a much higher level. I believe that it is a Satanic conspiracy. The reason these different people come to the same conclusion is not because they all met together; it is because they all work for the devil. He is their leader and they don't even know it.I believe that the zodiac is the gospel in the stars.The Sphinx is the face of a woman with the body of a lion, symbolizing how the zodiac begins with Virgo the virgin, and ends with Leo the lion.Did you know that the black suited organization that attacked the Koresh cult was a United Nations task force?I heard a man give his testimony who manages a mental institution. He told me that the government pays him to keep 60 percent of his beds
empty..... the Federal Reserve system that prints the money is not part of the government, but rather, it is a private corporation. They print our paper bills for about two and one half cents each. They rent them to the government for face value. That is one thing that continually increases the national debt. We owe money to the federal reserve system.There are those who really object to nationalities. Part of the globalist movement is to get people to think globally instead of nationally. Nationalism like, "I love America!" is really offensive to the globalists. They want to get you to get rid of the "I love America!" and get you to say "I love the world! ". They want to get all the children involved in the "Save the Planet," "Plant a Tree," "Go Hug a Tree." Watch out for the globalist movement, and the ridicule and the eventual persecution of nationalist, the people who love a country instead of the world.Could it be that people accept evolution because [....] They know that evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political
agenda of:i. Communism
ii. Racism
iii. Abortion
iv. Nazism
v. Socialism
vi. Gay rights
vii. Women's liberation
viii. Extreme environmentalism
ix. Euthanasia
x. Pornography
xi. Humanism
xii. New Age MovementYou say, Brother Hovind, you don't believe in fire breathing dragons do you? Yeah, you better watch video tape number three; there really werefire breathing dragons. http://home1.gte.net/dmadh/hovind4.htmThe Smithsonian Institute [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement right now as you are reading this. Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it.Nutty as a fruitcake, the dear Dr. Dino is!.... this New World Order has plans to reduce the population by May 5 of the year 2000 .... down to one half billion very soon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
[b]I am unhappy with the use of the word "fact" to describe evolution.

​

To most people, "fact" means a theory with 0% chance of failure.[/QUOTE]

​

Science is ultimately based upon induction; in that patterns in nature are recognized and predicted. To the degree that these patterns remain consistent, we develop strong theory and law.

​

My feeling is that if we are going to have a discussion about what a scientific "fact" is, we should do so in a scientific context, not "what most people mean" when they use "fact".

​

Everything in science is tentative, but not everything in science is equally tentative. The word that scientists use, to date, to describe something that we are very, very, very sure of is "fact".

​

quote:

---

Gould uses "fact" as having another definition. ie, one that allows for a degree of error. This is not the definition I subscribe to.

---

​

The problem is, that evolutionists quote "fact" as Goulds usage, when they mean ABSOLUTE INCONTROVERTABLE FACT, though they claim the former.

---

That is not true, at least for me personally. Falsifications would mean something to me if we observed them.

​

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:
[B]Schrafinator,Moose,A cudgel is a club.I hear you loud & clear re. your definition of fact. But do the people you are talking to? To most people, fact is an absolute certainty. We gain nothing by changing the definition & then saying evolution is a fact, to people who don't understand it to have that meaning. In fact it puts us back a step, creationists will simply argue we are claiming absolute certainty, & show why it isn't, they can score a point.[/QUOTE]OK, but to most people, "theory" means "guess", while it means something much different to scienctists. Do you suggest that we have a discussion about scientific theories and not call them theories just because the common usage means "guess"?I actually do think we gain something when we use the word "fact" or "theory" properly in a scientific discussion. At the very least, it reveals the relative level of knowledge of the basics of science if the people who we are debating with use the terms incorrectly.Ignorance is so often accompanied by arrogance in the people deriding the ToE and science. They rarely come to the discussion assuming that because they have never studied Biology in depth, they might not have a basis to object strongly to a major theory.This arrogance is the reason they don't know how scienctists use the terms that they do; they don't feel the need to understand because they already know it all.

quote:

---

Also, are the existance of fossilised organisms 100% fact? There are patterns in rock, that is fact. That they are fossilised organisms is an interpretation of the facts. How can we be 100% sure then, that the fossil record does show evolution when the basic premise isn't absolutely factual? It is a VERY reasonable inference, (99.99% recurring), but thats all.

---

Right.So what?Am I 100% certain that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow?No.Do I worry about it not happening?Also no.If everyone waited for 100% certainty to accept something as fact, then we would never move on to anything else. Seems silly to me.It's the degree of certainty that science strives to increase, yet never reach 100% certainty.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]
There are six different kinds of evolution that would have to happen to get us where we are today.

​

Only ONE has been observed and that is adaptation. Assuming that adaptation proves the other 5 forms of evolution is in no way scientifically provable.

​

Adaptation is also evident of a "good design."
[/QUOTE]What the heck are you talking about?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
But at what point do you know you have achieved XX% surety, in order to use your definition of fact? A poorly supported theory may in the end to be absolutely correct, when a highly supported theory is overturned completely. You can not possibly KNOW the relative level of knowledge, so how can you define when to use your definition of fact, to assign it to a scientific theory? It would be wrong to do so.

---

I think that this is a fluid thing. There is no clear line, it's true. However, you must not forget that as we learn more about nature, every new discovery will either strengthen or weaken existing explanitory theories. They are constantly being tested. That's how Newton's theories were eventually shown to be lacking. Not wrong, but inaccurate under certain conditions. The ToE has been constantly tested for well over 100 years, and it has not been shown to be wrong or inaccurate. The mechanisms by which evolution occurs are disputed, but so far, the thousands upon thousands of individual tests of the theory have tended to strengthen it.It is an extraordinarily robust theory, so why not call the occurence of evolution "fact", just as we call the occurence of gravity "fact", or the existence of atoms "fact"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
[QUOTE][b]
People who go to religious schools because their parents make them have God presented as 100% FACT. They also have the THEORY of evolution presented to them. [/QUOTE]

​

[/b]

​

Then kids should be presented with creation in schools as well.

---

Which version of Creation? The Christian version? What about the Hindu version? Or the Native American version, the Egyptian version, or the Chinese version? The Ancience Greeks and Romans also had their versions, as do many other religions around the world.Tech about various religious creation myths in a Comparative world Religions class, but not in science class.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] Of course I'm bias against evolution.

​

Evolution has destroyed many christians faith. And it isn't even provable. The christians whose faith was destroyed by evolution werent even aware that evolution isnt provable.[/QUOTE]If some Christians lost their faith because it was based upon one chapter in Genesis being literally true, then their faith wasn't based upon a firm foundation in the first place.Don't blame science for Christians losing their faith. Blame the religious leaders for forcing people to choose between reason and logic, and blind adherence to rigid dogmatic fundamentalism that doesn't allow them to think intelligently and use their (God-given?) reason.

[QUOTE] There may not be anyone on this board who agree's with me, but believe me there are many americans that do.[/B][/QUOTE]1) Science isn't decided by popular vote.2) 50% of Americans belive in Astrology, and that is more than believe in literal Genesis Creation. Another large minority of americans belive in Alien abductions. Do you think astrology and IFOlogy should be taught in public school science classrooms?

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
In my oppinion one of the biggest problems with this country.

---

OK, let's say we repeal the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and become a Theocracy. We would join other countries with Theocracies such as Iran and Afghanistan.Then, we would have to decide which would be the state-mandated religion.If it can somehow be decided that Christianity would be the state-mandated religion, I propose that the Christian demomination which has the single-largest membership in the US should be chosen.That would be Roman Catholic.Since Catholics have no problem with the ToE (finally) and do not take the Bible literally, you wouldn't be allowed to believe in the literal Creation in Genesis any more.