elwoodblues

<a href="http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k" target="_blank">http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k</a>

"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."

"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution)."

"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."

Anyone know anything about this organization? Is there any chance that the 'peer review' ISN'T by a bunch of creationists? I mean, as a theory, evolution is fairly simple once you grasp the basics. If this is an honest contest (BIG if), it wouldn't be too terribly tough to prove it out, at least as a theory.

But I know that this isn't an honest contest. If it was, someone would have scooped up that cash long, long ago.

Francois Tremblay

That's old hat. The terms of the contest are completely false, and it's been shown that the contest is rigged anyway (see <a href="http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/challenge.html," target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/challenge.html,</a> especially the bottom links).

Even a non-iniate on the subject can easily see that points 1-3 have strictly nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and point 4 is bizarre (how could lower animals be "interested" in anything ?).

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

Boro Nut

I am offering an eternal life prize to anyone who can prove god

elwoodblues

lol, that's what I thought. And, I agree, those 5 points were off-the-wall, to say the least. Thanks for the heads-up.

trunks2k

I really like that site. I have something interesting to read now

Pantera

drdino/CSE is Kent Hovind's organisation. Hovind could charitably be described as "foaming at the mouth". For a real laugh, have a look at some of <a href="http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/quotes/index.html" target="_blank">these</a>. Even organisations like AiG and the ICR try not to have too much to do with him.

There are a few threads in the archives about the "offer". Here's two a quick search turned up.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000581" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000581</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000281&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000281&p=</a>

Answerer

Haha Boro nut, I offer heaven to anyone who can prove Jesus.

Hobbs

Besides the five points demonstrating an abysmally poor understanding of evolution, why in the world would anyone have to prove that "option 3 above" is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence? Would that entail proving that even if there is a God, that, for all possible gods, it is the case that God could not have possibly caused the phenomena? Shouldn't the standard of proof be to demonstrate that it did happen that way, not that it could only have happened that way? (analogy: would one have to prove that the only way Shrubya could possibly have become president would be for the Supreme Court to essentially appoint him as president in order to prove that this is in fact how he became president?)

By the way, I haven't read a public school textbook in quite a while, so maybe they are accurately portraying how evolution is typically taught in school. If so, that would go a long way toward explaining the general scientific ignorance in the population at large.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>