hello all,
I am an evolutionist wanting to take Hovind's challenge. However, I have a few questions.
1. Does he still have the money.
2. The challenge is worded in such a way that it seems impossible to undertake. I wold basically have to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster and prove evolution, the big bang, and abiogenesis in one shot.
Where to start...
I am prepared to defend any claim made in any reputable, peer reviewed, journal expounding on evolutionary theory. Do not feel limited in your response to issues I address, you are free to bring your own to my attention.
Let us begin the discussion with source material.
Creationist literature is one book of one volume.
Evolutionist literature is extremely numerous and ongoing.
By definition, religion is a set of beliefs, an inherently supernatural set of beliefs, formed out of source documents with no specific, verifiable, or ongoing authors. (No, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not count, and while God may have 'inspired' Genesis, we have only the word of the source text itself to go by) A source can not verify itself. Additionally, religious beliefs are not the result of the scientific method. Therefore, evolution is not a religion, on those grounds alone. Feel free to argue this point, but be prepared to support your claims with evidence. For reference, enter 'science' or 'religion' into any online dictionary.
Science on the other hand, of which evolution is a viable and working theory, is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. (From dictionary.com) If anyone who reads this truly needs an example of how evolutionary theory was formed by the use of the scientific method please ask, I will be happy to expand on this issue. Furthermore, if anyone has cause to challenge the scientific theory itself, please do so.
As far as Kent Hovinds criminal charges, let them be an example of his moral fiber, not of his ability to argue, which is a separate issue altogether. I am not here to discuss a person. I am here to discuss an issue that is important to all of us. Please try to stay on topic. Please remember to support claims with evidence. This thread will be bogged down enough by emotional responses; let’s try to remain cool and professional.
To give you a little information on where I am coming from, I am a practicing Christian, but I also have an M.A. in Archaeology. I believe that the two are no way in conflict. I can be persuaded to expand on this issue as well, if desired. Good luck all and I look forward to hearing back from you all.
Evilution is a system of beliefs myopically based on uninformatarianism (itself based on the assumption that everything is changing so slowly that we can't prove it is changing at all). The earliest extant writings of the authors of the New Testament dismissively refered to are placed within decades or years of their lives. Most of what we call history can't be placed within hundreds and more often over a thousand of years of those that penned them originally.
Regarding the source verifying itself it is not a point to argue in any other case, The Bibel is uniquely the source that does verify itself through prophecy. I conceded the point that evilution is not a religion as I have already established it is simply a mistaken system of beliefs. As for the scientific method, it has a long illustrious history of laymen proving the experts wrong with few exceptions. Reference Galileo and the Wright Brothers. The "scientific method" was asleep when the theory of evilution was established. No facts or truths were involved, just a series of finds of questionable stratigraphy (often suface finds)by unqualified peseants paid to find bones. Legitimate discoveries by more scholarly individuals in strata that did not fit the accepted model were labled anomolous and ignored by self proclaimed experts. This is particularly true of human evolution. Dating methods are ignored and unpublished unless the support the model, Articals may be dated several times using many methods yielding irreconcilably broad ranges and if one supports the theory the rest are simply not mentioned. Even the dating methods assume uninformatarian principles and can not be reliable. This includes even the newest radiometric methods Uninformatarianism is not proven and not likely ever to be proven. Punctuated equalibrium is a lame attempt to salvage evilution from the increasingly obvious validity of catastrophic geology. Evilution doesn't obey all the "general laws" The entropic principle (second law of thermodynamics?) The variables in carbon dating can only be accurate if all the variables are uniform from the time the sample stopped breathing. For instance ocean levels and tempratures must be consistant (which even evilutionists claim is not the case)
In closing I will read your take on how evolutionary theory was formed by the use of the scientific method if you read Forbidden Archeology before you type it.
I find it sad that people have been deceived into believing evolution is a religion. Is special relativity a religion? How about Quantum Theory? Algebra....this to I suppose?
Just cleaned up a couple duplicate posts by Jay :-)
Also, I would love to get involved in this discussion - but don't have time for a full debate.
One of the projects I am working on (which I am calling a "Matrix", as it is conceptually similar to a 2 dimensional array), is a completley new type of information format which will be based on dynamic, filterable data arranged in columns. I will (for example) be able to set up a "matrix" with columns for "Fact, Creationist interpretation, and Evolutionist interpretation {And possibly YEC interpretation, OEC interpretation, Punctuated Equilibrium interpretation, etc}". Anyone will be able to add facts or interpretations, and everyone will be able to see at a glance how well each worldview position can explain the facts we see in the world around us!
I think it will be much more useful than a standard forum where everything is organized in individual "posts", as debate betwen contributors will be completley seperated from fact presentation for those who just want to compare each position.
As soon as I finish the "matrix" feature (which may be a couple months), everyone will be welcome to add data! Untill then, everyone is of course welcome to continue the debate here.
-Aubrey
Here is some more proof why evolution is so stupid ;-) http://dagobah.biz/flash/atheist_delusion.swf
Hovind's Challenge shows a complete lack of scientific understanding. By the same criteria Hovind's theories have no legs to stand on. You have a better chance taking James Randi's challenge:) It is actually fair and scientifically verifiable. One day I am sure someone will win it. Of course for the individual who does the million dollar prize is inconsequential next to the value of the discovery.
Hovind's Challenge shows a complete lack of scientific understanding. By the same criteria Hovind's theories have no legs to stand on. You have a better chance taking James Randi's challenge:) It is actually fair and scientifically verifiable. One day I am sure someone will win it. Of course for the individual who does the million dollar prize is inconsequential next to the value of the discovery.
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
Nitron;
You have come to the wrong place to ask questions about financing, as this site is not affiliated with Hovind's official CSE ministries in any way. You would be much better off contacting the official CSE ministries site at http://DrDino.com
With that said, I would have have no problem hosting your attempt to take the challenge on the FreeHovind.com info section once you accept it provided your attempt is interesting, non offensive, and fairly represents the evolutionist viewpoint. It would be interesting to be able to read all the evolutionist attempts :-)
-Aubrey