Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000

"I didn't say you used it as support or evidence.You use it as your starting point and as your constraint to what you will accept.This is not scientific.
"
--Perfectly correct, this is not scientific. However, this I do not do."I think that you understand me perfectly but you are being evasive."
--I do understand you perfectly. If I have seemingly been evasive, how may I be more direct?"If you are doing science, you should be looking at where the evidence leads you, and only where the evidence leads you."
--Exactly! Amen, this is why I have always used a simple phrase I conjured up. "The bible should not be used to complement science, but science should be used to complement the bible". IOW, the bible should be your conclusion (if infact this is what the data leads to), nothing more."Checking the Bible to make sure your 'science' "fits" is not scientific thinking, TC, no matter how much you want it to be, or how many times you tell yourself that it is."
--I've never told myself this."Checking the Bible to make sure your 'science' "fits" is not scientific thinking, TC, no matter how much you want it to be, or how many times you tell yourself that it is."
--I fully agree."You have the potential to think scientifically, that is apparent. However, you have hamstrung yourself by requiring that nature fit your interpretation of the Bible."
--No, infact If you may, I am technically not fully decided yet. I am simply working from a perspective to start with, YECism.
--The bible can be nothing more than part of my conclusion if that is what it has lead to. And just for the record, Genesis 2:4 makes a nice argument for the OEC's IMO.------------------

Someone has posted this in a message at the Yahoo branch. It's a mp3 file of a Hovind debate. The file runs 29.8MB, which would take lots of hours to download on my personal slow internet connection. http://www.infidelguy.com/Pigliucci_Hovind_debate_32kbps.mp3It looks to be a fairly low sample rate file, which should be OK for speech. I suspect the audio may run an hour or more.Perhaps someone with a fast internet connection could download this thing, and somehow post some smaller soundbites?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

-Evolution is a religion
-Dogs come from bananas is what Evolution says
-Time is a supernatural power the 'magic ingredient'
-Shrink Africa by 30-40% and then you get Pangea
-Pangea is a far cry from a scientific fact
-Comparing Computers and Biological EvolutionConclusion:
Hovind... Is a lunatic. Basically, according to himself he 'boils away all the fluff and the feathers', IOW, he doesn't like the details. I still just don't know why he still believes all this stuff.--Edit - Hovind really bombed this one, not like this is new or anything though.--Edit - Just listened to the whole thing, 130 minutes. I really hope I didn't just get dumber after that, well hey, at least its better than listening to his seminars. Good thing Pigliucci was there to keep mutations in my brain from become harmfully permanent. :\ or something like that.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-25-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"If you are doing science, you should be looking at where the evidence leads you, and only where the evidence leads you."
--Exactly! Amen, this is why I have always used a simple phrase I conjured up. "The bible should not be used to complement science, but science should be used to complement the bible". IOW, the bible should be your conclusion (if infact this is what the data leads to), nothing more.

​

---

That, in a nut shell, is where you thinking is 'wrong headed'.Name a scientific theory that started with a conclusion.Any one.Science starts with observations ... then seeks to explain them ...
then seeks to further support the explanationDoesn't it ????

"That, in a nut shell, is where you thinking is 'wrong headed'.Name a scientific theory that started with a conclusion.Any one.Science starts with observations ... then seeks to explain them ...
then seeks to further support the explanationDoesn't it ????"
--Very right, however, you misinterpreted my statement, I am saying that IF the bible be included at all it should be in your conclusion. Of course this conclusion however is not at all pre-conceived. This simply states that the bible should not be the evidence or support.------------------

quote:

---

Doesn't it ????"
--Very right, however, you misinterpreted my statement, I am saying that IF the bible be included at all it should be in your conclusion. Of course this conclusion however is not at all pre-conceived. This simply states that the bible should not be the evidence or support.

---

JM: So, I ask again. If the bible did not exist, would creationist organizations insist on a global flood? What if (put your thinking cap on) the bible had a story about mankind being wiped out by a giant windstorm? Do you think creationists would then interpret geology as resulting from the giant windstorm? Answer honestly.CheersJoe Meert

"JM: So, I ask again. If the bible did not exist, would creationist organizations insist on a global flood? What if (put your thinking cap on) the bible had a story about mankind being wiped out by a giant windstorm? Do you think creationists would then interpret geology as resulting from the giant windstorm? Answer honestly."
--A Global-type flood may have still been proposed somewhat, though in your instance on a 'giant windstorm', I think they would start with looking for evidence of a 'giant windstorm' rather than a global flood though, unless someone would have thought up the idea of a windstorm causing some type of flood. However, say for instance that the bible never did say that it were a Flood, or maybe it didn't give dates and time limits, etc. There would have been a much more massive spectrum of alternative explanations encompassing many different scales and causes and effects for whatever the mechanism. If the bible never asserted it as a global flood, it may IMO be rational to say it would be comparable to think of what it would be like if Wegener et al. never existed.------------------

[Duplicate post, sorry - Deleted]------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
The website describes how you can do it.

​

All you have to do is prove evolution is fact.

​

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

---

Bump Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I'm not one to repeat gossip, so you'll have to read it right here the first time.Quoting from a topic at CreationWeb
http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.php?p=856#856

quote:

---

Every one's good pal Kent got arrested for burgulary, assualt and some other nastiness. From super fraud to multiple felon in a few easy steps.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/...02/Record/Index.shtml

---

I've made no effort to confirm if the referred to is "the" Kent Hovind.Moose

The notice reads:"Kent E. Hovind, 49, 400 block of Schubert Drive, assault, battery, burglary."THE Kent Hovind's middle initial is also "E", also lives in Pensacola. Hovind's schedule of appearances on his website, as of today, appear to be busy, with appearances all month.Something nasty is going on down there:http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=news&specific=62

Kent Hovind has been the topic for a bit, at the "Whats the creationists thought on this?" topic, the current message being at:
http://EvC Forum: What's the creationists thought on this? -->EvC Forum: What's the creationists thought on this?It's off-topic there, but gives me an excuse to bump the main Hovind topic.Moose

The nature of any theory is that it can not be proven. True science attempts to disprove a theory. When over years and years it can not be disproven it is assumed to be true. Evolution may yet be disproven but considering the main tenents of the theory I doubt it. Right now it is the best game going. By offering this prize the creationists are showing that they don't understand the nature of scientific study. Creationism on the other hand has never been a valid theory because it can not be studied. People should dispare at any science that sets out to prove something. Many scientists fall into this trap because they want so badly to be right.This message has been edited by Oakheart Greensong, 02-10-2005 18:56 AM

True Creation! My homie! I read one odf your old posts in this thread. What do you believe today? Have your beliefs changed any??

"By a vast consensus, scientists accept this vast evidence as being valid - they accept evolution as being a fact. If these scientists are the jury, the Hovland challenge has been met (proven to beyond a reasonable doubt)"What is this consensus and on what basis did they come to this consensus? Is it something like," I will support you and you support me"? OR it was done on the basis of compelling evidenceThis message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-06-2006 12:08 PM