Get paid $250,000 to prove evolution

[Mauer]

creation science

Below is the offer that I copied from the above link.

**************************************************

How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1 The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2 No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3 No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4 Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1 Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2 Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3 Matter created life by itself.
4 Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5 Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

 

[Double Barrel]

I shall not attempt to argue yay or nay regarding the TOE (there are proponents and opponents in CFC that are far more eloquent about it than me), but it can never be proven 100% without a doubt. Interesting that it takes a leap of blind faith to swallow it without question!

 

[Rhymes]

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Does that mean he admits that microevolution is a fact?

Anyway, this is crap. The origin of the universe cannot be proven and every school books state that the big bang is only a theory. I never heard a single scientist say he was 100% sure in the origin of the universe. So when he says :

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact,

, he forgets that no one is.

 

[Hotpoint]

A quick link regarding Kent Hovinds $250,000 offer

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

To be as clear as possible at the very outset: Kent Hovind's "offer" has nothing to do with the validity of the vast body of evidence, from a breathtakingly broad range of disciplines, that establishes the Theory of Evolution as one of the bedrocks of modern science. His challenge, as will be seen, is a mere humbug without value in any rational appraisal of science. The terms of the offer are formulated to be unattainable and it would be nothing but a total waste of time and effort for any proponent of evolution to participate in his charade. The only intent of the offer is to gull the credulous and confuse the uninformed.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Good ol' Hovind. I suppose you all see the catch; you have to convince him, and he can, of course, claim to be unconvinced no matter what you say.

I can't tell why he insists on looking like an idiot by claiming that the origin of space, time and matter, or of planets and stars, has anything to do with the ToE. In fact, only his last point is truly relevant to the ToE strictu senso, and disproving it wouldn't kill off the ToE.

 

[Renata]

Actually if you read his offer really carefully, he's not asking you to prove evolution at all; he's asking that you prove that God does not exist. Which is impossible. Hovind is the prototypical "liar for Jesus".

Renata

 

[Rhymes]

An other interesting statement from talkorigins:

He argues that the "failure" of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the "hypothesis" of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature.

So according to Hovind, a theory is a religion....

 

[Dida]

Evolution is a phenomenon, just like the wax/wane of the moon, it is something that happens. I have never heard of one can possibly prove a phenomennon. Basically, there is nothing to be proven. To say 'prove evolution' doesn't even make sense. How does one prove the wax/wane of the moon? One can only observe it.
Theory of evolution is a theory that explains how evolution takes place. Just like the theory of gravity, which explains how gravity (a force, a phenomenon) works. A theory can be proven. It is only a theory, of course, although there are good evidence that suggest it is true, there is always room to improve as with all scientific theories. This effectively denies the claim by christians that theory of evolution is a religion. Religious people do not believe that there is always room to improve in their belief system.
And to say someone 'believes' in evolution doesn't even make sense. As with all scientific work, they simply present the evidences and we look at them and think it is the most effective way of explaining the problem at hand. It does not require faith, nor does any theory claim that it is absolute and can never be changed (religions claim their dogma is absolute, universal and unchanging). Bascially, we think evolution is the best explain, but we are always open for more advanced and more convincing arguement. However, the lame arguements by creationists does not even ring a bell, and their frequent misconception about science is laughable.

 

[Cheetah]

I can prove to Hovind that evolution exists, under one condition;
that both he and I live for a few million years!

Do you think I could get the money in advance? The interest over a few million years would be huge.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Incidentally, God just told me Hovind is going to burn in Hell for his sins.

 

[Azadre]

Couldn't I just give him penecillian and then expose him the a new form of flu?

 

[newfangle]

My God! If I've ever see a complete raping of the scientific method, this is it!

 

[Keirador]

I'm formulating a challenge too:

PROVE THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS NOT GEOCENTRIC
If you really believe in this newfangled and baseless idea that our planet orbits around the sun, and can prove it to my educated, trained, and completely objective panel of completely unbiased 14th century priests, you will win, let's say, Los Angeles.

The Terms:
Evidence must be conclusive, empirical, and completely indisputable.
One may not use evidence that originates from heretics, as it is unreliable.
A heretic is defined as anyone who disagrees with me on this minor point, even if they share my basic faith.


To compete for the prize, one can mail their proofs directly to a waste disposal site, or schedule a time to present their findings to disinterested passers-by on the street corner. I suggest shouting loudly to gain attention. Word should get back to me eventually.

 

[Iggy]

creation science
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

My suggestion:
Buy a dictionary and look up the word, 'theory'. As far as the ToE being described as a religion goes I think someone is just being a little pathetic and child like.

 

[CurtSibling]

As Iggy points out, Evolution is merely a theory.

Just like creationism is merely a 'evolved' culture myth.

It's just that it is modern, learned sceintists who offered us the concept of Evolution.
And not an unprovable fable offered up by ancient, half-civilised shamans.

Each age of man has it's own answers.

I prefer those who are at least grounded in some logic.

....

 

[carlosMM]

what a devious plan: he demands not proof that evolution happenes, but rather prove that NO OTHER EXPLANATION is possible - if you interpret everything metaphysically nothing is impossible - ergo what he demands cannot be proven. Then he'll turn around and say 'evolution cannot be proven', which is something entirely different. What an ass!

 

[CurtSibling]

The author needs a good slap.

.....

 

[carlosMM]

My suggestion:
Buy a dictionary and look up the word, 'theory'. As far as the ToE being described as a religion goes I think someone is just being a little pathetic and child like.

sorry to rain on your parade, but the word 'theory' in science emans a lot more than the word 'theory' in common english. What you call a 'theory' I'd call a 'hypothesis'.

Theory means 'beyond any reasonable doubt, well supported'.

 

[Gothmog]

Heh, yes that is quite humorous.
Well, it would be if it were meant in jest.
As a serious statement it is very sad.

Why not take a step back and debate the age of the earth. This same organization (the icr), and man (Kent Hovind), also believes in a young earth (thousands of years old). The amount of physical phenominology that one has to reject to cling to a theory of the young earth is amazingly large and broad. Yet they persist. You will note that in the above 'challenge'.

If you are prepared to reject such observable physical phenomina as radioactive decay, then the more subtle forms of evidence used in molecular biology and paleoentology are easy to reject.

So the basic argument comes down to 'I trust the word of God over the word of man', which really means 'anything that contradicts our narrow interpretation of the bible must be wrong'. You will see statements to that effect at the icr institute's web page.

Indeed it may be that an omnipotent being has some reason for making our physical reality appear much older (millions and/or billions of years depending on what we are dating), when it is really only a few thousand years old. But that way lies madness.

In fact the challenge comes down to 'prove that an untestable God does not exist'. I'll follow Carl Sagan's challenge, 'prove that the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage does not exist'.

 

[betazed]

In fact the challenge comes down to 'prove that an untestable God does not exist'. I'll follow Carl Sagan's challenge, 'prove that the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage does not exist'.

Perhaps statements like "prove something does not exist" may not be completely meaningless and impervious to a scientific attack. {Although I completely agree that it is usually useless as a argument for existence of something. }

After all we prove things do not exist regularly in mathematics. We assume existence and then reach a contradiction. maybe such an approach can be tried with concepts like God/spirit/fire-breathing-dragon-in-garage.