Prove evolution. Earn 250 large!
 

All you have to do is empirically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only way the worrld could have been created. Check it out here.

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

The only part of that that is evolution is number five. Three and four are associated, but poorly worded - Early life forms did not learn to reproduce. Early self-replicating molecules eventually became complicated enough to be called life.

Amusingly, most of his fine print is lists of various types of evidence that he has decided not to accept.

Re: Prove evolution. Earn 250 large!
 

Feh,

I will give one million dollars to someone who can empirically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god is NOT an omnipotent galaxy sized Nike sneaker that controls the universe using some role-playing game boxed set and a set of polyhedral dice.**


**I choose to ignore Occam's razor as a form of evidence because its my million dollars and I said so, Nyah.

I see. So empirical evidence is required to prove Mr. Hovind wrong yet the lack of it is sufficient to prove Mr. Hovind right? Does he not realize that one need only switch the position of the arguments to put him in the exact position he is putting those who advance the theory of evolution?

What a dumbass.

All you have to do is empirically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is the only way the worrld could have been created.

That's the problem with science -- you can't prove anything, you can only disprove things and generate a theory. It is not possible to prove evolution is the only way things happened. Maybe Dr. Hovind is better off spending his $250,000 doing it the right way by finding something about the theory that is not correct, thereby challenging it as a whole.

I think "Creation Science Evangelism" has an extra word in it.

Yes, but we teach evolution in our schools and shun creationism because it's just a 'theory'

Yes, but we teach evolution in our schools and shun creationism because it's just a 'theory'

We also teach the 'theory' of gravity in our schools and it has yet to be proven.

I'm okay with teaching creationism in our schools, as long as you also teach the Norse theory that Muspell was the first world to exist before this one and Surt guarded that world until he vanquished all other gods before him.

No creationism is not a theory but a belief.

A theory must have some logic in it.

Saying that God came down from the heavens and made the world because you think so isn't a theory. It's a belief.

Moreover, ther are plenty of fossils that support eveolution theory but not a single peice of evidence that supports creationsim.

The reason people teach evolution in school and not creationsm is because people go to school to learn science not religious propaganda..

No creationism is not a theory but a belief.

Creationism could be a theory if it had a foundation, evidence, and a series of contructs to base the idea on. The problem is that all evidence for creationism usually goes like this: "the eyeball is so complicated, it could not possibly have evolved, therefore it must have been created by a higher power".

That's an arguement against evolution, which is fine, but those arguments against one theory are not how you create another.

For reference, some of this was also discussed here.

Minor correction: the theory of evolution is taght in schools as are many other theories for which the evidence is substantial but circumstantial.

Creationism has no business being taught in schools as it has no basis in science. Schools don't teach matters of faith and don't even think about taking the position that the theory of evolution is a matter of faith. While it might turn out to be wrong, such a development would fly squarely in the face of a mountain of supporting evidence. Just because the evidence falls short of incontrovertible is no reason to put the idea on the same level as an idea advanced by one of the writers of the Bible however devinely inspired he may have been.

And I will never understand why so many have a hard time understanding why God, in his wisdom, "dumb-downed" the Bible to make its message accessable to sheep herders by using metaphors and analogies and other symbolic language.

And I'm a pretty devout Christian, btw (a fact I mention solely for its bearing on this discussion). Let's recall the torture of Galileo for having the audacity to suggest that the sun did not, in fact, revolve around the earth.

For reference, some of this was also discussed here.

Five pages of posts? No way I'm reading all of that. Yuck!

Your loss.:)

You can't even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that creation happened. No one can prove evolution, either. He says that creation isn't a theory because it's a belief. Well, evolution is believed by people, isn't it? The only way you can prove anything is to experience it and no one alive has. This guy obviously had a god-complex.

By the way, I do believe in creation, but how long was God's day? In the Bible, a thousand years happens in an instant for God. Creation was made in 6 days. How long did that take for us mere mortals here on earth?