$50 to anyone who can prove to me evolution is a lie.

Sharon357 said:

Lenny Flank takes up the $250,000 challenge on Evolution: "I ran into a
reference to a debate between Lenny and Hovind. The commentary
suggested that Lenny ripped him up and that written exchange was on the net
somewhere. True ? If so where can it be found today ?"
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/hovind.htm

--
Keeping in tradition with Kent Hovind... I've just issued the $50 challenge,
to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
Fifty bucks... to spend any way you want!
http://www.skeptical-christian.net/invite.html

Click to expand...

Since Hovind's definition of "evolution" is actually atheism, in keeping with Hovind's offer you need to define "evolution".

Let me suggest you use biological evolution and the definition below:

"Thus, evolution, in a broad sense is descent with modification, and often with diversification. Many kinds of systems are evolutionary ... In all such systems there are populations, or groups, of entities; there is variation in one or more characteristics among the members of the population; there is HEREDITARY SIMILARITY between parent and offspring entities; and over the course of generations there may be changes in the proportions of individuals with different characteristics within populations. This process consitutes descent with modification. Populations may become subdivided so that several populations are derived from a COMMON ANCESTRAL POPULATION. If different changes in the proportions of variant individuals transpire in te several populations,the populations DIVERGE, OR DIVERSIFY. ... All these properties of an evolutionary process pertain to populations of organisms, in which there is hereditary transmission of characteristics (based on genes, composed of DNA or, in a few cases, RNA), variation owing to mutation, and sorting of variation by several kinds of processes. Chief among these sorting processes are CHANCE (random variation in the survival or reproduction of different variants), and natural selection (consistent, nonrandom differences among variants in their rates of survival or reproduction). It is natural selection that causes adaptation -- improvement in function. Thus biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms , or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. ... Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans." Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, (1999) pg 4.

Sharon357 said:

Lenny Flank takes up the $250,000 challenge on Evolution: "I ran into a
reference to a debate between Lenny and Hovind. The commentary
suggested that Lenny ripped him up and that written exchange was on the net
somewhere. True ? If so where can it be found today ?"
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/hovind.htm

--
Keeping in tradition with Kent Hovind... I've just issued the $50 challenge,
to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
Fifty bucks... to spend any way you want!
http://www.skeptical-christian.net/invite.html

Click to expand...

What is your point? Is this indicative of many threads around here?

Sharon357 said:

It's no more sillier, than the "Dr" offering $25,000 that of course, he NEVER INTENDS to let go of... no matter the evidence... no matter the truth, he ain't going to give that loot up, for anything.

As I've always heard, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is". And that goes for his so-called status as a Dr.

Now that fifty bucks I've put up as an incentive for creationists to disprove evolution, well see now, that's a *realistic* offer. But when you see the big bucks like Hovind's claiming to give away, you already know it's because they're trying to sell beliefs... it's a con... it's an attempt to get *big attention* with zero liability.

There isn't ANY BELIEF in this world, worth $25,000 to me.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you would want to offer $50 to creationists to "disprove" evolution. Is it just to parody Hovind?

EvolvEarth said:

Click to expand...

Well, that was certainly an insightful post (as, of course, this one is).

Ben Reid said:

I'm not sure why you would want to offer $50 to creationists to "disprove" evolution. Is it just to parody Hovind?

Click to expand...

Mostly. Hovind's offer is very frustrating because of the dishonesty hidden in it. Hovind makes it look like evolution is not a well-supported theory. So we are frustrated at this attempt to mislead people, like we would be frustrated at any con man.

1. The big mistake, of course, is that Hovind equates evolution with atheism. What Hovind is asking is not the scientific theory of biological evolution (which like all science is agnostic) but Hovind wants proof that God does not exist. Since atheism is a faith, Hovind's money is safe.

2. Hovind misuses the term "proven". By the deductive logic used by science, no theory can be absolutely proven. So Hovind's money is safe.

3. Hovind lumps separate disciplines and theories under evolution. For instance, abiogenesis is included. So is cosmology and the source of the matter/energy/spacetime of the universe. Since that latter goes to First Cause where there is always likely to be insufficient data available, Hovind's money is safe again.

IOW, Hovind sets up a sucker bet.

Ben Reid said:

Well, that was certainly an insightful post (as, of course, this one is).

Click to expand...

Ben, Dayton posted this exact argument on another thread. However much a parody it looks, there are people out there who have this exact attitude. In fact, it is institutionalized in the oath required to join the Creation Research Society.

Sharon357 said:

Keeping in tradition with Kent Hovind... I've just issued the $50 challenge,to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie. Fifty bucks... to spend any way you want!

Click to expand...

I can save you $33.75. There is a book at Walmart called: "You Are Being Lied to: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths". It covers Darwin and the book only sells for $16.25. Unless the book is lieing to you, about you being lied to. Do you suppose that they would lie to us about who is and who is not lieing to us?

1 John 2:21
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Sharon357 said:

It's no more sillier, than the "Dr" offering $25,000 that of course, he NEVER INTENDS to let go of... no matter the evidence... no matter the truth, he ain't going to give that loot up, for anything.

Click to expand...

He would pay it, if you could prove that evolution is true. It is just that no one can prove that evolution is true.

lucaspa said:

Mostly. Hovind's offer is very frustrating because of the dishonesty hidden in it. Hovind makes it look like evolution is not a well-supported theory. So we are frustrated at this attempt to mislead people, like we would be frustrated at any con man.

1. The big mistake, of course, is that Hovind equates evolution with atheism. What Hovind is asking is not the scientific theory of biological evolution (which like all science is agnostic) but Hovind wants proof that God does not exist. Since atheism is a faith, Hovind's money is safe.

2. Hovind misuses the term "proven". By the deductive logic used by science, no theory can be absolutely proven. So Hovind's money is safe.

3. Hovind lumps separate disciplines and theories under evolution. For instance, abiogenesis is included. So is cosmology and the source of the matter/energy/spacetime of the universe. Since that latter goes to First Cause where there is always likely to be insufficient data available, Hovind's money is safe again.

IOW, Hovind sets up a sucker bet.

Click to expand...

A few points:

1) I don't buy the standard "science is agnostic line". There are definitely times when the majority scientific consensus on something results in a conflict with religion. It is not always the responsibility of religion to adapt either.

I believe that undirected evolution IS irreconcilable with theism. I have a debate on this open on the debate boards, but it is largely a theological/philosophical issue, so I'm not sure if you are interested.

2) Nothing can be proven outside of formal systems. I agree with you that the word proven is often misused.

3) Science only splits things up for practicality reasons. In a sense, there is only the "theory of everything" and the seperations are arbitrary. There is no reason why you HAVE to isolate abiogenesis and evolution (I imagine they would never have been seperated if abiogenesis had been demonstrated in the lab.)

Regardless, I see no reason why someone could not suggest that abiogenesis be part of the criteria for reasonably demonstrating the complete process from no-life to the diversity of life we see today.

Edit: Changed the last paragraph -- made no sense (it's 5am here)

lucaspa said:

Ben, Dayton posted this exact argument on another thread. However much a parody it looks, there are people out there who have this exact attitude. In fact, it is institutionalized in the oath required to join the Creation Research Society.

Click to expand...

Regardless, I think EvolvEarth only posted what he did for mocking purposes.

1A) Then you dont understand science. Yep, there are times when science conflicts with religion, but religion is Not god. Yes it is the responsibility of religion to adapt, otherwise they will get lost. Science studies the earth and universe we have. If a religion disagrees with the universe, then I suggest that that religion, or its interpretation is wrong.

1B) Yes, undirected Evolution probably doesnt fit with theism. However Science never says and Cannot say that it is undirected or directed. Thus your problem is not with science, but with the philosophy that its undirected.

although I think you said that, I just want to make sure.

Ben Reid said:

A few points:

1) I don't buy the standard "science is agnostic line". There are definitely times when the majority scientific consensus on something results in a conflict with religion. It is not always the responsibility of religion to adapt either.

I believe that undirected evolution IS irreconcilable with theism. I have a debate on this open on the debate boards, but it is largely a theological/philosophical issue, so I'm not sure if you are interested.

2) Nothing can be proven outside of formal systems. I agree with you that the word proven is often misused.

3) Science only splits things up for practicality reasons. In a sense, there is only the "theory of everything" and the seperations are arbitrary. There is no reason why you HAVE to isolate abiogenesis and evolution (I imagine they would never have been seperated if abiogenesis had been demonstrated in the lab.)

Regardless, I see no reason why someone could not suggest that abiogenesis be part of the criteria for reasonably demonstrating the complete process from no-life to the diversity of life we see today.

Edit: Changed the last paragraph -- made no sense (it's 5am here)

Click to expand...

Ben:

I would agree that undirected evolution is irreconcilabe with theism. But you are immediately begging the question by adding in this qualifier. As a theory, whether evolution is directed or not is of no consequence. True, scientists have to study it without reference to any supernatural guiding, since the studying of the natural, by definition, does not include the *super*natural. The extent to which the supernatural may be involved is simply not part of their area of study. This does not equal a denial of a supernatural guiding, just an ignoring of it.

Science is the study of the natural processes God originated, not how God originated them and definitely not how God over-rides them (which He does on occasion).

What should be opposed is the philosophy of Naturalism, which many who believe in evolution also agree with. But not all, and they are not the same thing.

As for separation, it is very important to separate different scientific theories in a case like Hovind's offer. He is NOT saying prove evolution happens, he is saying "prove God has nothing to do with creation". The former, while not "provable", is definitely arguable beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter is, of course, not provable at all, no matter how true.

Arikay said:

1A) Then you dont understand science. Yep, there are times when science conflicts with religion, but religion is Not god. Yes it is the responsibility of religion to adapt, otherwise they will get lost. Science studies the earth and universe we have. If a religion disagrees with the universe, then I suggest that that religion, or its interpretation is wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't understand science and you do -- haven't heard that before!

I'm afraid that science does not just get a blanket default assumption that it is correct and religion is wrong. We just the epistemic certainty of our relative ideas and form conclusions appropriately.

If science does indeed properly explain the universe without any need for Divine intervention (and I don't believe it does) then theism is on shaky ground.

Vance said:

Ben:

I would agree that undirected evolution is irreconcilabe with theism. But you are immediately begging the question by adding in this qualifier. As a theory, whether evolution is directed or not is of no consequence. True, scientists have to study it without reference to any supernatural guiding, since the studying of the natural, by definition, does not include the *super*natural. The extent to which the supernatural may be involved is simply not part of their area of study. This does not equal a denial of a supernatural guiding, just an ignoring of it.

Science is the study of the natural processes God originated, not how God originated them and definitely not how God over-rides them (which He does on occasion).

What should be opposed is the philosophy of Naturalism, which many who believe in evolution also agree with. But not all, and they are not the same thing.

As for separation, it is very important to separate different scientific theories in a case like Hovind's offer. He is NOT saying prove evolution happens, he is saying "prove God has nothing to do with creation". The former, while not "provable", is definitely arguable beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter is, of course, not provable at all, no matter how true.

Click to expand...

It is imporant to separate methodological naturalism which is necessary for science from philosophical naturalism which seems to be what you are talking about. Creationists seem to be fond of conflating the two.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

"If science does indeed properly explain the universe without any need for Divine intervention (and I don't believe it does) then theism is on shaky ground."

But it cant.

It can show that it could Possibly have happend without divine intervention, but it cant show that it did happen without divine intervention.

Like evolution. Show me how science shows that god could not have created certain mutations in animals?

Ben Reid said:

Yes, I don't understand science and you do -- haven't heard that before!

I'm afraid that science does not just get a blanket default assumption that it is correct and religion is wrong. We just the epistemic certainty of our relative ideas and form conclusions appropriately.

If science does indeed properly explain the universe without any need for Divine intervention (and I don't believe it does) then theism is on shaky ground.

Click to expand...