who wants to be a 250 thousandaire

[jcismyhomeboy]

Dr. Hovind is willing to give anyone with concrete evidence for evolution $250 000,

heres the link

have at it.

http://www.drdino.com:8080/Ministry/250k/index.jsp

[Mr. Neil]

You're a moron.

[MrSpooky]

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 challenge is bullshit. He's worded the challenge in a manner that it is IMPOSSIBLE to meet. It also has requirements that no scientist in their right mind would accept in any line of experimental work.

 

Think about it this way... suppose in a court of law the ONLY PERMISSIBLE EVIDENCE is absolutely 100% direct evidence. Now you're putting a murderer on trial. There is video footage of him killing the victim, there was blood on his hands, there was a distinct motive, and there were his fingerprints on the murder weapon.

 

What would you think about the court system if...

 

1. It dismisses the video evidence as "circumstantial," because video footage can be faked.

2. The blood on his hands could be anyone's blood! (the court chooses to ignore the DNA evidence)

3. The court dismisses the motive argument because no one can REALLY know another person's thoughts or intentions. (the court chooses to ignore his diaries which state that he really really hates the murder victim)

4. The fingerprints could've come from someone whose fingerprints match his perfectly.

 

The ONLY evidence the court will accept is if you can build a time machine and take the judge and the jury back to the crime scene so they can witness it for themselves.

 

This is pretty much EXACTLY what Kent Hovind requires for his challenge.

[Guest Tiffany]

You're a moron.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hahaha! Your killing me, Neil!

[jcismyhomeboy]

You're a moron.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

honestly neil, i just want to see you guys put your best evidence forward.

i get the impression that you and spooky are probably the best read on this, and i just want to see you guys engage someone more qualified than myself.

This is just kind of a hobby for me, not my lifes work, i do have a basic understanding in some subjects but i'm not the man when it comes to defending creationism, this guy is, just give it a shot, he will post your opinion and give you guys a fair shake.

[MrSpooky]

Oh yeah, here we go.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

 

This is Kent Hovind's definition of evolution...

 

* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

3. Matter created life by itself.

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

 

Evolution is a BIOLOGICAL subject. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH ASTRONOMY OR CHEMISTRY. ONLY the last two on this list are relevant, and they are VERY badly worded.

[jcismyhomeboy]

honestly neil, i just want to see you guys put your best evidence forward.

i get the impression that you and spooky are probably the best read on this, and i just want to see you guys engage someone more qualified than myself.

This is just kind of a hobby for me, not my lifes work, i do have a basic understanding in some subjects but i'm not the man when it comes to defending creationism, this guy is, just give it a shot, he will post your opinion and give you guys a fair shake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he wants something more along the line of macro evolution currently taking place, or evidence thereof. He doesn't accept a non-beneficial mutation as evidence though, he wants to see a climb upward.

[MrSpooky]

JC, Astrophysics is "just a hobby of mine," and philosophy is "just a hobby of mine." I'm a double-major in Genetics and Cognitive Neuroscience, and that means I'm pretty busy.

 

However, this does NOT prevent me from being so poorly informed on the most basic aspects of physics that are addressed in any introductory physics course. Nor does it prevent me from being unable to look up the data myself on websites devoted to physics, astrophysics, what have you.

 

I appreciate the fact that you're asking genuine questions, but I hope that your inquiry is honest. If it can be demonstrated to you that the strongest evidence at hand points directly to Evolution, would you accept evolution as true?

[jcismyhomeboy]

JC, Astrophysics is "just a hobby of mine," and philosophy is "just a hobby of mine."  I'm a double-major in Genetics and Cognitive Neuroscience, and that means I'm pretty busy.

 

However, this does NOT prevent me from being so poorly informed on the most basic aspects of physics that are addressed in any introductory physics course.  Nor does it prevent me from being unable to look up the data myself on websites devoted to physics, astrophysics, what have you.

 

I appreciate the fact that you're asking genuine questions, but I hope that your inquiry is honest.  If it can be demonstrated to you that the strongest evidence at hand points directly to Evolution, would you accept evolution as true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

spooky, i do have to research the sources before i can make that claim, but there is a lot of evidence out there that contends with evolution as well, i guess its just a matter of who you choose to beleive. Have you seen Carl Baugh's dino footprints?

[MrSpooky]

I think he wants something more along the line of macro evolution currently taking place, or evidence thereof. He doesn't accept a non-beneficial mutation as evidence though, he wants to see a climb upward.

 

I'm afraid that Hovind isn't this honest, JC. If you'll read over the link I gave you, Hovind not only wants "Macro/Micro" evolution proven to him, he also wants abiogenesis proven to him, as well as Cosmology, Astrophysics, etc.

 

Furthermore, Hovind wants it proven that God absolutely 100% doesn't exist. This is just another step in the wrong direction... evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD. Creationists have simply MADE God come into the picture.

[MrSpooky]

Oh yes, Hovind's a pretty wacky character. He's not only a reputable liar who lied to the IRS...

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html

 

He lied about Cytochrome C...

 

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html

 

And he's so incompetent and dishonest that even OTHER CREATIONISTS refuse to work with him...

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp (AnswersInGenesis is a creationist website)

 

When an attempted critique of this AiG article appeared on Kent Hovind’s Web site, AiG was somewhat surprised (and disappointed) to note that it frequently and significantly misrepresents and/or misunderstands the statements and positions made in our carefully researched document.

 

In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, we believed we had to respond to Kent Hovind’s critique (albeit with a heavy heart), particularly because of the mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good.

[jcismyhomeboy]

I'm afraid that Hovind isn't this honest, JC.  If you'll read over the link I gave you, Hovind not only wants "Macro/Micro" evolution proven to him, he also wants abiogenesis proven to him, as well as Cosmology, Astrophysics, etc.

 

Furthermore, Hovind wants it proven that God absolutely 100% doesn't exist.  This is just another step in the wrong direction... evolution has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.  Creationists have simply MADE God come into the picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

spooky, in the context of creationism it does. Evolution is directly contrary to the judeo-christian God. It suggests that God was too dumb to do it right the first time, and that he has no purpose for our lives and so on. But i do understand what you mean, it does seem that hovind has set the bar pretty high, I guess i just wanted to pit your evidence against his heads up. In the debates i've seen the "experts" he was debating seemed pretty uninformed, and i thought since you guys have a broader scope of knowledge it would be more interesting.

[Mr. Neil]

I think he wants something more along the line of macro evolution currently taking place, or evidence thereof. He doesn't accept a non-beneficial mutation as evidence though, he wants to see a climb upward.

Hovind wants to see evidence that basically defeats the purpose of doing the science in the first place. If we could just show evolution happening in real time, then there'd be no point in making a complex theory about it and testing it. We could just say, "Yep, there it is."

 

Hovind has been shown evidence, and he quibbles around everything with blatantly circular logic. For example, he swerves common ancestory with his worthless "common designer" conjecture, which he postulates without applying any methodology to reach that conclusion.

 

And in doing so, he ignores things that completely falsify similar design, such as Endogenous Retroviruses, which are random viral RNA which gets slipped into our DNA via infection and passed on to our descendants. As it turns out, we have a lot of the same retroviral sequences that the chimps have. OOPS!

 

Here's some more stuff you're not going to like: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

And this too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/informatio...ipoprotein.html

 

 

I think Spook's words sum up Hovind's challenge quite nicely...

 

 

What would you think about the court system if...

 

1.  It dismisses the video evidence as "circumstantial," because video footage can be faked.

2.  The blood on his hands could be anyone's blood! (the court chooses to ignore the DNA evidence)

3.  The court dismisses the motive argument because no one can REALLY know another person's thoughts or intentions.  (the court chooses to ignore his diaries which state that he really really hates the murder victim)

4.  The fingerprints could've come from someone whose fingerprints match his perfectly.

 

The ONLY evidence the court will accept is if you can build a time machine and take the judge and the jury back to the crime scene so they can witness it for themselves.

 

This is pretty much EXACTLY what Kent Hovind requires for his challenge.

Hovind's offer is a sham. It words the challenge in such a way that it's impossible to win the money. The trick is that he's not actually asking to see proof of evolution. He's asking to prove a negative. Obsoive...

 

 

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.

You could never win that, because there is always, in theory, another way things could have happened that we just haven't observed yet. His offer could only be won if the person attempting to win the money has absolute knowledge.

 

He also misrepresents evolution and despite being corrected by a number of people (myself included), he absolutely refuses to honestly portray evolution as the theory is presented by scientists. Again, observe...

 

 

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).

1. and 2. LIES! He's talking about big bang cosmology, which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a theory of biology only!

3. LIE! Now he's mixing evolution with abiogenesis. Not the same thing!

4. Loaded assumption! No scientist on the planet has ever dared to say that evolution gave rise to creatures capable of reproducing. Again, Hovind is mincing evolution with abiogenesis, in which biochemistry theorists think that pre-biotic replicators gave rise to what eventually became biotic reproduction.

5. Blatant misrepresentation! Here's the creationist drinking game. Every time a creationist accuses evolution of doing something "spontaneously" or "instantaneously", take a drink! You'll be drunk within five minutes. No one thinks this, so why does Hovind list this? Oh, because he's a dishonest charlatan!

[Thurisaz]

Dr. Hovind is willing to give anyone with concrete evidence for evolution $250 000,

heres the link

have at it.

 

 

No decent scientist or scientifically-minded person would bother to waste a single second with hoover's bullshit.

 

Have you seen Carl Baugh's dino footprints?

 

Which of the many fraudulent prints do you mean?

[jcismyhomeboy]

 

No decent scientist or scientifically-minded person would bother to waste a single second with hoover's bullshit.

 

Have you seen Carl Baugh's dino footprints?

 

Which of the many fraudulent prints do you mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How are they fraudulant, didn't they uncover them from under sedimentary rock.?

[Mr. Neil]

Oh Jesus Christ... Don't call him a "Dr. Hovind". He's not a doctor. He got handed a mail-away degree from a diploma mill. It is not an accredited degree and does not deserve to be acknowledged. If Hovind's a doctor, then so am I.

[jcismyhomeboy]

Oh Jesus Christ... Don't call him a "Dr. Hovind".  He's not a doctor.  He got handed a mail-away degree from a diploma mill.  It is not an accredited degree and does not deserve to be acknowledged.  If Hovind's a doctor, then so am I.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

would you engage him, i mean given the opportunity?

[Thurisaz]

How are they fraudulant, didn't they uncover them from under sedimentary rock.?

 

So?

It's not surprising to find animal footprints in some layer of sedimental rock. What would be surprising - and what always turns out to be forgery when cretinists present it - are such things like totally out-of-strata prints, or those infamous "human and dino prints in the same layer".

All thoroughly debunked. Just as thoroughly as everything else about babblical cretinism.

 

If you want to know why it's all bullshit, go read on the wonderful talk.origins archive. I can't speak for everyone, but you won't find me trying to make the classical total (and all-too-often willful) ignorance of the babblical cretinist disappear.

If you find something on that site you don't understand, you may ask us. But don't ask anything until you read it. Period.

[Thurisaz]

would you engage him, i mean given the opportunity?

 

He'd love to, but hoover would be a dust cloud on the horizon after some few seconds. Believe me, Neil wouldn't need more than ten seconds to expose hoover as the idiot he is.

Damn it, I could do that in a minute!

[MrSpooky]

"Engage" as in "punch him in the face?" I'd be sorely tempted, but I'm too nice of a guy.

 

The thing is, in a public debate, scientists have to work on a platform of solid facts, some of them kinda complex. Scientists have to spend time outlining the basic elements of an argument in order to establish that the facts they have are solidly supported. And this takes a certain amount of time.

 

Hovind doesn't do this. For every SINGLE well-established, nigh-irrefutable fact that a scientist can put forward in a debate, Hovind can spit out TEN arguments that are lies, mistruths, or misrepresentations. Sadly, audiences are more interested in the QUANTITY of what is presented, not the QUALITY, and even though Hovind has said pretty much NOTHING that is true, people will believe him. Hovind can win in public because the public is grossly uninformed about the basic facts of science and logic.

 

However, if Hovind and a scientist were debating in front of a group well-informed in logic, reasoning, and basic fairly basic stuff about science, Hovind would be on the losing end every time.

[Guest Tiffany]

Oh Jesus Christ... Don't call him a "Dr. Hovind".  He's not a doctor.  He got handed a mail-away degree from a diploma mill.  It is not an accredited degree and does not deserve to be acknowledged.  If Hovind's a doctor, then so am I.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dr. Neil ... That's got a ring to it.

[Thurisaz]

However, if Hovind and a scientist were debating in front of a group well-informed in logic, reasoning, and basic fairly basic stuff about science, Hovind would be on the losing end every time.

 

Remember hoover's listing of different "electromagnetic" wavelengths? Microwave, infrared, radar, sonar, ultra-violet...

[MrSpooky]

EDIT: Got these from this site... http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hovind_...fairy_tales.htm

 

 

 

 

Kent Hovind:  One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here's two parts of the same animal.

 

Scientist's Rebuttal:

 

Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled "Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska". It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950's and 60's. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); "flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius" (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the "skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 "with a beaver dam"). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.

 

NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed "baby", and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said.

 

 

 

Kent Hovind: In the early 1800's, people started teaching that, you know, the earth is older than 6000 years old. We had guys like Charles Lyell come along in 1830, and he's probably the primary guy that developed the geologic column that we use today, with the Cenozoic and Mesozoic, and Jurassic, and all that kind of stuff. And the whole thing's baloney. It doesn't exist. The only place you can find this geologic column is in your textbook.

 

Scientist's Rebuttal:

 

I told Hovind in October of 1998, before a large gathering, that the geologic column was in use before Darwin was born (1809):

 

"The geologic column is a concept fundamental to geology, and is one of the big pieces of evidence that supports biological evolution. These layers of sedimentary rock were laid down such that the lowest layer is normally the oldest. The lowest layers harbor the most primitive life forms, and one sees a sequential emergence of more-complex life as one goes from the lower levels to the higher.

 

Accusations concerning the geologic column abound in Hovind's publications. He asserts that the geologic column was "made up" by evolutionists, and that is exists only in textbooks. What is the reality?

 

A complete geologic column exists in North Dakota and at least 26 other places on earth, see The Geologic Column and Its Implication to the Flood.

 

It was devised not by evolutionists, but by Christian creationist geologists like William Smith. Smith was one of the first to acknowledge and index fossils. The column was in wide use by 1830, almost 30 years before Darwin published Origin of Species. (Bartelt 1998)"

 

Hovind seems content to perpetuate his false history of the geologic column.

 

 

 

Kent Hovind: But the fossils then are found in the layers and they assume the layer's a certain age. So if you take in a dinosaur bone, they're going to assume it's about 100 million years old, and they're going to date it until they get that number. They may have to test the sample four or five times. Then they come back and say Yup, that's right. 70 million, or 100 million. Just like we thought. Ha ha ha.

 

Scientist's Rebuttal:

 

If Hovind has particular information that a particular date is incorrect, he should supply that information. Allegations involving "they" or "them" are useless. He has done this previously, accusing "scientists" of finding Hyracotherium (primitive horses) in modern strata. In October 1998 I challenged him to present these findings to a reputable journal:

 

"The geologic column has contributed to what we know about horse evolution. Here is what Hovind has to say: 'They have taken critters from all over the world, South America, Europe, and Asia, and put them together in a predetermined area. They have already decided to start off with the smallest to largest animals. That is not the way they are found.'

 

"What Hovind is suggesting here is that 'they' are being purposely fraudulent. Who are 'they' Kent? If you think that scientists are purposely deceiving the public, why don't you come up with specific names of scientists and exactly what fossils are out of place?

 

"He continues: 'They find them in different layers, but they have it in the textbooks that eohippus slowly changes into equus, the modern horse. That's bologna', and 'Modern horses are found in layers lower than eohippus.'

 

"The only bologna here is what Hovind has written....so much that a link to the Oscar Meyer website is suggested. If Hovind knows of an Eocene Equus fossil, I challenge him to submit his findings to a reputable scientific journal." [bartelt 1998]

 

That was two years ago. The world is still waiting!

 

 

 

Kent Hovind: Continental drift theory, there's no question the continents are drifting a little bit. I was just standing on top of the San Andreas Fault last week. I was speaking out in California, and I'm goin' there again, let's see, day after tomorrow. So, I do, I've studied the San Andreas Fault, the Hayward Fault, the New Madrid Fault, none of 'em my fault, but I've been there, done that, have a T-shirt. There's no question they're moving a little bit. The question is, How long has this been happening? And can we come to any conclusions or assumptions because of this? What we know is they're moving a few cm per year, sometimes a few inches per year. And that's it.

 

Scientist's Rebuttal:

 

As anyone with even a minimal background in the earth sciences knows, that's not "it" at all. One particularly congruent example confirming both plate tectonics and the accuracy of radiometric dating can be found in the Hawaiian Islands. In 1838, geologist James Dana noted that the Hawaiian volcanoes were more heavily eroded as he travelled from the southeast toward the northwest (ie, Hawaii much less eroded than Kauai). He could conclude only that Kauai was older than Hawaii, but had no mechanism that explained why this was so. When the Hawaiian islands were radiometrically dated, this trend was confirmed, with Kauai being 5 million years older than Hawaii. When one follows this chain of seamounts northwest from Hawaii, the increase in age (and erosion) continues: Laysan - 19.9 million years; Midway - 27.7 million years; Suiko (near Japan) - 59.6 million years, see http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html. There was no explanation for this trend until the advent of plate tectonics. The ages are explained well if the volcanoes were formed as the Pacific Plate passed over a hot spot; the hot spot that is currently forming the Loihi Seamount off the southeast coast of Hawaii (the only part of the chain with active volcanoes). Assuming only that plate velocities are similar to the rates measured today (and in Hawaii it's about ten cm per year), one would expect to see a volcano that formed 27 million years ago to have moved 2700 km from the hot spot. Midway is about 2400 km from the hot spot. Hovind can neither explain these data away nor explain why, if radiometric dating doesn't work, there is a trend in the Hawaiian Islands consistent with erosion patterns.

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists are willing to provide evidence to solidify their claims. Kent Hovind is NOT.

[Mr. Neil]

would you engage him, i mean given the opportunity?

Hovind used to seem like such a bastard in a debate, but now I kind of look at him as somewhat of a lightweight, because I've seen what slows him down. The wrong way to debate Hovind would be on a point-by-point basis. Hovind always has an answer to any piece of evidence any evolution proponent has in his arsonal.

 

What he doesn't have, however, is the ability to think on his feet. If challenged, Hovind usually resorts to red herrings to dodge questions he can't answer. And what really stops him dead are philosophical questions. Hovind can't do philosophy, and I think it would be really funny to see someone like Zach Moore debate Hovind for that very reason.

 

Reggie Finley got him really good on the phone a few months back with philosophy, and I've never heard Hovind just stop dead like that before.

 

 

The guy is basically a moron. He can't argue against evolution unless he lies about it. He's been corrected numorous times. If I were to simply restate the proposition of evolution, which is a theory of biology, then I can easily expose Hovind's unwillingness to actually debate the topic. He argues past people and not with them, and I think I can exploit that.

 

For example, on his website is a video debate in which he engages a biology teacher, Dr. James Paulson, about evolution. Hovind concludes his debate by mincing evolution with atheism. He does this all the time, and it's really annoying, but the irony is that Dr. Paulson isn't an atheist! HE'S A CHRISTIAN! And he made this abundantly clear within the debate! Basically, Hovind had to mischaracterize his opponent's position, which had already been clearly established earlier in the same damn video!

 

[True] said it best. Hovind is like a robot. He doesn't actually argue. There are certain things that you can say that will trigger precise responses. It's like pushing buttons.

 

He's a joke.

[crazy-tiger]

Can I just thank you, Mr Spooky, this little snippit...

Kent Hovind:  One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here's two parts of the same animal.

 

I recall ol' JC's homeboy mentioning how SCIENTISTS had done that, and he gave it as proof that scientists got things wrong.

 

 

 

Nice to see I was right about it just being another creationists lie...