Man offers $250,000 for proof of evolution

[King PJ]

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.

Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.

Here is the link.
Please read the entire thing so you can understand it in its entirety. It's easy to make arguements by pulling stuff out of context.

Now this is remarkable. If evolution is ever proven (which I doubt) this guy will be out of $250,000. He has alot of guts for doing this. I put into italics what I wanted you all to notice. He admits that neither can be proven and you must rely on faith to believe either one. For 2000 years, man has been trying to prove that God exists and has failed. For 150 years, we still don't have "empirical evidence" that evolution is true. We live in an age of science, I would think that after 150 years some kind of proof would exist. I think evolution is nothing more than an unproven myth and people are wasting their time and money trying to prove something that can't be proven.

 

[SolarKnight]

But there is plenty of evidence around to support evolution, maybe not 100% yet, but the more time progresses, the more proof we find.

If you ask me, he sounds like the kind of guy that wouldn't accept the proof even if it was there anyway.

 

[Yuri2356]

Yep. Sounds to me like when we finally confirm it all, he'll just sit in the corner with his hands over his ears babling about how the vidence is doctered and god will smite us for doubting him, blah blah blah....

Either that or this guy is seriously willing to accept the evidence, and will have to cough up $250K.

Could go either way.

And again this person claims that in order to belive in evolution, one has to also accept the "big bang" theory, and associates the evolution of life with the evolution of the universe just because the same word can be used to describe both! I lot of things can can be called a form of evolution, because all the word means is change. I could call the coming of Christ an evolution of spiritual beliefs, would he suddenly abandon his belief in god because someone with a thesaurus can stick that one evil word into his beliefs?

I'm not staying to debate this topic, I'm jsut tossing in a few comments before things fall into the same pattern they always do.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

he'll never need to worry about losing that $250k. Hard to prove something that doesnt happen.

 

[Perfection]

Wow, another evolution page!

Now this is remarkable. If evolution is ever proven (which I doubt) this guy will be out of $250,000.

Of course, he throws in Big-Bang theory, abiogenesis and astrophysics as components of evolution, when it is not. Now while they all are well evidenced, it's pretty hard to sum up 150 years of science into a single presentation and with even the slightest mistake the creationists will take it and run with it, and as a last ditch effort in case all others are proven, they can always argue that god was a guiding hand.

He has alot of guts for doing this. I put into italics what I wanted you all to notice. He admits that neither can be proven and you must rely on faith to believe either one. For 2000 years, man has been trying to prove that God exists and has failed. For 150 years, we still don't have "empirical evidence" that evolution is true.

Emperical evidence is included in posts #1 and #8 in the link in my sig. There is clearly emperical evidence for both macro and microevolution (which is terminology that creationists constantly butcher)

We live in an age of science, I would think that after 150 years some kind of proof would exist. I think evolution is nothing more than an unproven myth and people are wasting their time and money trying to prove something that can't be proven.

Oh, it's quite proven, all evidence points to evolution.

I have yet to see any creationist explain to me why the fossil record/extant species morphology, genetic differences/similarity, biochemical differences/similarity, developmental differences/similarity can all be mapped out to produce a single branched phylogeny.

 

[Perfection]

he'll never need to worry about losing that $250k. Hard to prove something that doesnt happen.

Wanna back up that claim, buddy?

 

[WillJ]

Someone needs to offer this guy $250,000 to look up the word "evolution" in a dictionary.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Wanna back up that claim, buddy?

I'll add $2.50 to that 250k if you can prove macroevolution.

 

[King PJ]

Emperical evidence is included in posts #1 and #8 in the link in my sig. There is clearly emperical evidence for both macro and microevolution (which is terminology that creationists constantly butcher)

Oh, it's quite proven, all evidence points to evolution.

Then why don't you send your "proof" to him and see what happens? You have nothing to lose. I completely doubt you will receive any money. But what would be interesting to see his response. You probably won't say anything he hasn't heard before.

I have yet to see any creationist explain to me why the fossil record/extant species morphology, genetic differences/similarity, biochemical differences/similarity, developmental differences/similarity can all be mapped out to produce a single branched phylogeny.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain in non scientific terms. For I am not educated in such terms.

 

[Perfection]

I'll add $2.50 to that 250k if you can prove macroevolution.

Sorry, I may debate here and make some damn strong arguements, but to come up with "proof" on an internet forum, probobly not.

Then why don't you send your "proof" to him and see what happens? You have nothing to lose.

Actually I have time and energy to lose. Plus I may be an excellent debater but I'm not that good.

I completely doubt you will receive any money.

Duh! I don't have the time or energy to make a massive enough opus to encompass it all.

But what would be interesting to see his response. You probably won't say anything he hasn't heard before.

It's a possibility, but Ernst Mayr would probobly say the same thing to Kent Hovind.

However, just for fun, I'll post a bit of my arguements

Let us take a brief look at some of the evidence that give credence to evolution.

1. Biogeography, animals are in close proximity to structurally similar animals. Now, creationists may argue that it is because of the similar climate but they are mistaken. Take the famous example of the Galapagos Islands. The birds there are structurally close to the ones off the South American coast even though the climates are competly different. Therefore the location must be the factor in taxonomic relatedness. Additionally islands with much more similar environments have birds that are more related to the birds of thier coast than to the birds of the Galapagos. Surely if there was an intelligent designer the birds from similar islands would have similar structures to face similar challanges, however this is simply not the case. Geography is the measure of structural similarity not climatology!

2. Paleogeography, continental drift theory shows that around the time of the early mammals (as per the fossil record) Australia breaks free from all other continents. Today, Australian mammels are massively different from all other mammels. How can creationism account for the fact that there is such a massive difference?

3. A clear line of homologous structures. In the fossil record and among modern animals they follow a nested branching line of similarities in structure. For example all vertabrates have spines and all mammals have fur. Why is it that no animals besides vertabrates have fur? With creationism there is no answer, with evolution, the answer is because the predecessor to all furry creatures was a vertabrate. Now, many creationists will argue, "well what about structures like the eye?" But when one looks at the nature of a squid eye vs. a bug eye vs. a fish eye we see that just because they have the same purpose they are very different in terms of structure. The method in which squid eyes and fish eyes focus is very different, and bug eyes look completly unlike the eyes of other animals. The structure in eyes is very different as is the way it works, however mammal fur and structure is basically the same for all mammals!

This is clearly evidence based upon observed phenomena, so we can put the myth that evolution has no way to observe it to rest!

 

[Yom]

I agree with you perfection, but Vertabrates have spines by definition, so it doesn't really add to your argument.

 

[romelus]

i'll give one million to anyone who can prove creationism

oh yeah to prove creationism you'd have to prove god exists first

i think he'll lose his 250,000 before i lose my mil

 

[Perfection]

I agree with you perfection, but Vertabrates have spines by definition, so it doesn't really add to your argument.

It's not about the fact that vertabrates are defined as having spines rather that animals with fur (mammels) all have spines (those that have fur-like traits have a completly different hair structure indicating that it's not really the same structure), it's the fact that mammels are a subset of vertabrates not that there are some invertibrate mammels. All of life's creatures can be put into a system of branched phylogeny. Humans into primates into mammels into quadrapeds into vertabrates into chordates into animals into eukaryotes.

 

[Perfection]

i'll give one million to anyone who can prove creationism

oh yeah to prove creationism you'd have to prove god exists first

i think he'll lose his 250,000 before i lose my mil

I'll back up that million with 10 dollars, as well.

 

[MSTK]

Evolution doesn't exist because I saw in a dream that it did not and I think that the dream comes from God so nyah.

/joking

 

[Perfection]

Evolution doesn't exist because I saw in a dream that it did not and I think that the dream comes from God so nyah.

I had a dream where trees could talk, doesn't mean god is telling me that trees talk. I attribute it to your imagination.

 

[Mrogreturns]

I wonder what this guy means when he suggests that gravity is proven because you can observe it. The observation that masses are attracted to one another is equivalent to the observation that there is diversity of life on earth. The relevant theories seek to explain these observations and they can never be proven in any absolute sense. So this guy might as well offer $250,000 to anyone who can prove a theory of gravitation to be correct.

 

[CenturionV]

Evidence in irrelevant, to prove some thing you must test it and use it to predict some future occurance, short of time travel (which opens a whole other can of worms) the amount of time required to confirm even very limited evolution is totally beyond our lifespans.

By its very nature evolution is just as totally umproveable as creationism. They are totally equal beyond peoples perception of the evidence. Trying to say one or the other is less scientific, is essentially the same as trying to say one championship football team is scientifically better than another, you can look at the evidence, and draw a conclusion, but NEVER prove either using science.

This is why I am very annoyed when people try and make creationism out to be so less "scientific" than evolution, when both are only based on your own opinion of the evidence availible.

 

[Arminius]

An interesting point: While evolution is a scientific theory, so is gravity...
Why doesn't he put $250K up for proof of gravity?

 

[Shadylookin]

The man has a warped view of evolution and I don't think I could answer him when he clearly ascribes things to evolution that deal with whole other areas of science. First and foremost evolution is the study of living things on our planet, it has nothing to do with astronomy, geneology, nor all the theories of how this universe came to be or just existed. If the man has spent a good deal of time crying over a theory he should at least learn what in the blazes he is talking about. For some reason I don't think he is educated enough to have ever made 250,000 in his lifetime. Secondly I cannot prove anything to you, I cannot prove the sun exists because someone may be hell bent on believing we live in a matrix of some sort and the sun doesn't exist he is just feeling sensations created by the matrix. You just have to take a look at the universe and decide what seems rational and consistant with it. Thirdly the man plays to God of the gaps thinking that since I nor any scientist can explain something at this point in time it has to be by the divine grace of Jesus. To reiterate once again only 4 and 5 of his list have anything to do with the theory of evolution.

The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.

and of course he left out the only thing of any real importance which would be a biologist. I applaud his efforts though.

The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.

I can't really resist, but perhaps creationism is an example? Let's face it the "father of evolution" Darwin was a christian(I heard later in his life he deconverted to agnostic) you can't really say it was an atheist invention so they could justify their beliefs. How many atheist were there back then anyway?

As for his claims that we are all being indoctrinated by evolution in our schools is just simply false. I had a biology class for 18weeks do you know how much time was spent talking about evolution? Around 5 minutes I think he devoted 3minutes afterward to saying that some people believe that the earth was created only a few thousand years back. A scientific theory wasn't discussed because it would offend a few people and/or their parents.

The fact that this man didn't die from forgetting how to breath brings doubts of the evolutionary theory to me.