who wants to be a 250 thousandaire

[dustmouse]

Attention Christians!!

 

 

 

Want to be a MILLIONAIRE??

 

 

 

Prove the Biblegod CREATED the UNIVERSE and James Randi will give you $1Million!!

 

 

Don't believe me?

 

 

See here: Randi's Website

[atheist_thinker]

What is he a doctor of? BS? What degrees does he have? none

 

It's like a me calling my self a doctor. I guess I could be the doctor of love as for as my wife is concerned but all BS to the side here, His degrees are BS

[Merlinfmct87]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LMFAO!!!!

 

Merlin

[Mr. Neil]

What is he a doctor of? BS? What degrees does he have? none

He has a BS in creation science!

 

Yuck yuck yuck yuck yuck yuck!!!!

[DaveL]

Where does Hovind get all his money from?

 

a) his tax free exemption

by preaching bullshit to people who pay to hear him validate their views.

c) by performing controversial stunts to raise his profile

d) All of the above...

 

Ponder.....Ponder....Ponder...

 

Can I phone a friend......

 

I think it's d)...

 

Are you sure....

 

The answer is d)...Lock in d).

 

You've won 250,000 dollars!!!

 

[Asimov]

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.

 

I remember that. My brother and I were listening to it, and laughing.

 

Reggie: Ok, so evolutions false, now what? Prove that God exists.

 

Hovind: Well, blah blah blah, but that doesn't mean evolutions true!

 

Reggie: Mr. Hovind....we're not discussing evolution, I've agreed that it's false, now what, how do you know Christianity is true?

 

Hovind: Evolution is false!!

 

*sound of gunshot as reggie shoots his computer*

 

[spamandham]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm willing to offer $250,000 to anyone who can prove to my satisfaction that the universe exists. The successful candidate will first show me something actual that doesn't exist so that nonexistence can be falsified.

 

However, I reserve the right to use my own judgment regarding standards of evidence.

 

...crickets chirping...

 

You have all failed. The "universe exists" theory is thus shown to be the fraud my books say it is.

[Mr. Neil]

I remember that.  My brother and I were listening to it, and laughing.

 

Reggie:  Ok, so evolutions false, now what?  Prove that God exists.

 

Hovind:  Well, blah blah blah, but that doesn't mean evolutions true!

 

Reggie:  Mr. Hovind....we're not discussing evolution, I've agreed that it's false, now what, how do you know Christianity is true?

 

Hovind: Evolution is false!!

 

*sound of gunshot as reggie shoots his computer*

Let this be a blueprint for all creato-Christians. You can't prove your theology by attacking evolution. The man [Hovind] was completely incapable of making an argument for his theology. As Reggie said, he had nothing!

 

That's a downloadable segment, too, so Hovind's humiliation was etched in stone.

[Lokmer]

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,

 

Um, the Bible pretty much says this about God. Attend:

But the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind had become great on the earth. Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted24 that he had made mankind on the earth, and he was highly offended. So the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—everything from mankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”

 

Yahweh the ominpotent and omnicient botched the Creation the first time - his creation turned out utterly evil as the result of its own action. So, he has to destroy it and remake it again.

 

Unfortunately, he didn't realize that Humans were irretrievably faulty (bad design) and that the rest of the creation was irrevocably saturated with violence, so when he selected a "good" and "blameless" man to carry on the new, purer human race, he fucked it up. He accidentally picked a drunk with a hell of a temper, one of whose three sons had a bit of an Electra complex (i.e. lusting after Daddy). So, even before the Ark reached dry land, there was strife, curses, bad feeling, drunkenness, and voyerism going on.

 

You don't need Evolution to "imply" that God is incapable of doing the creation correctly, your whole damn Bible tells story after story of God fucking up.

 

-Lokmer

[Mr. Neil]

I didn't catch that quote. Actually, evolution says no such thing. Evolution only says that life is capable of adapting to changing environments. Life is durable. In other words, life was "created" quite correctly in a world in which evolution is true.

 

And as Lokmer points out, it's the Bible that says God fucked up. Not evolution.

[MrSpooky]

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.

 

I'd try to find God in other places, if I were you.

 

 

 

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.

 

He isn't just setting the bar "pretty high," he's setting the bar IMPOSSIBLY HIGH.

 

Now, when you watch those debates between Hovind and actual scientists, what makes Hovind seem so impressive to you? Is it because he has a solid, well-founded argument and is capable of and willing to demonstrate it to you, or is it because he provides more examples than the real scientists?

 

Like I said, actual scientists base their arguments on foundations that are AS SOLID AS POSSIBLE. This unfortunately means that in order to explain a concept fully, they're going to need to take a good deal of time to explain to audiences what they mean exactly.

 

Let's go back to my court example to demonstrate this...

 

 

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.

 

SAYING all this stuff to "debunk" a court case to people who know nothing of forensics takes less than five minutes. However, explaining FULLY why each of these arguments are wrong is going to take a bit more time.

 

So suppose the two lawyers are in court working on this trial. The first lawyer, who represents the defendant, uses the tactic of rattling off lots and lots of ideas, but he does not have the substance to back them up.

 

The second lawyer, who accuses the defendant of murder, argues that all the points the first lawyer made are wrong, they are lies, or they are utterly irrelevant. However, to debunk the first lawyer, the second lawyer explains in detail how DNA evidence works, how the video could not have been faked, etc. But to fully address everything, it takes a LOT MORE TIME because the second lawyer works by citing facts, providing evidence, and walks the audience through rigerous proof.

 

Now, suppose each lawyer is allotted only one hour to make their arguments. Where the first lawyer could make 50 claims with no evidence backing them up, the second lawyer can make only ten arguments... however, these arguments are based on solid fact and difficult to refute.

 

However, the audience is very much human, and they will tend to listen to the first lawyer instead, because "Okay, we'll believe the second lawyer on those first ten things because he has high-quality evidence. But hey, the first guy still has 40 claims that the second lawyer didn't address! Maybe the second lawyer CAN'T address these claims! The first lawyer is right!"

 

And as a result, a murderer who would've been convicted by anyone who knew about the case walks free. This is the exact same problem with Hovind... he will spout off 100 superficial lies in the time it takes a scientist to make TEN STRONG, WELL-SUPPORTED CLAIMS. And people will believe quantity over quality.

[Mr. Neil]

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

 

Although I have never formally used that as a moniker, I am never going to discourage other people from calling me that. Especially since it's been known to piss off a few fundies!

[MrSpooky]

I wanna get fake credentials into being a pastor so I can say that Christianity is wrong.

[Asimov]

I wanna get fake credentials into being a pastor so I can say that Christianity is wrong.

 

 

universal life church offers free ordinations.

[Eccles1:2]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

JC, God was too dumb to do it right first time. Remember the Flood...

 

 

Sorry, Lokmer, I've just seen you already covered this...

[TruthWarrior]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not necessarily. All it contradicts is your restricted tiny timeline and might have you change your views on the nature of the adam and eve story. There is still purpose in life with evolution, just as there is with man instantly forming from dust.

 

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds as certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an [unbeliever] to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

 

- St. Augustine in his fifth-century work "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis"

[dustmouse]

If you absolutely MUST believe in a creator-god or you feel you will fall over, wither up and die... then why do you have to limit him to the creative process that you think is best? Isn't it just possible that evolution is the means by which your god created the earth and the universe? That he chooses how and when things will evolve and keeps his hand in it always?

 

Remember, science explains the how (evolution) not the why ('cause god wanted it to be that way - from your standpoint).

 

And the two are not mutually exclusive because they seek to answer different questions!

[Mr. Neil]

Isn't it just possible that evolution is the means by which your god created the earth and the universe? That he chooses how and when things will evolve and keeps his hand in it always?

Exactly, Dusty. This nimrod, and people like him, will never consider that. There isn't a fundy in the world who can answer the questions you just asked, because if they tried to assert why God wouldn't use evolution, they would be insinuating that they know the mind of God, which is only digging themselves deeper.

 

And he can't deal with the evidence. In the flood geology thread, I brought up angular unconformities, one of my favorite pieces evidences against the flood. Every Christian I've confronted with angular unconformities has run away. And now look, he hasn't posted here since Wednesday.

 

My guess is that he won't be back. If he dares to come back, he's only going to get beat up some more.

 

 

 

...Jesus Christ, I can't believe he used the Paluxy tracks. What a nincompoop. He should just paint crosshairs on his chest and hand one of us a rifle.

[Lokmer]

Exactly, Dusty.  This nimrod, and people like him, will never consider that.  There isn't a fundy in the world who can answer the questions you just asked, because if they tried to assert why God wouldn't use evolution, they would be insinuating that they know the mind of God, which is only digging themselves deeper.

 

I've never understood this mentality. As someone who is VERY into art and music and poetry, I understand the value of dissonant notes and lame-footed stanzas. Evolution is a threat to Christian Theology, but it's not a threat to a great designer. It's a threat to Christian Theology because 1) there's no fall of man (which has to be there for everything else to work), and 2) the nature of the order in the universe is manifestly one where human beings aren't the point of the whole thing. "Bad" engineering is everywhere, the idea of an "intelligent designer" seems ludicrous IF you assume that mammals (of any kind) are the reason the universe was created.

 

But, the balance of forces, the order and vastness, and the occasional sour note DO add up to something incredible - something that might have been designed, not as an experiment in salvation, but as an artwork, or a symphony, or even a recursive algorhythm.

 

Evolution - both biological and cosmological - is a threat to Christian Theology. But it is always *possible* that there is a God whose interest lies in things far more important than our tiny little globe. Perhaps we are a brief violin solo in this symphony, shining bright for a few measures, and then fading back into the melody.

 

Now, I don't necessarily believe that this is TRUE, but it certainly is a delightful thought

 

-Lokmer

[Thurisaz]

And he can't deal with the evidence.  In the flood geology thread, I brought up angular unconformities, one of my favorite pieces evidences against the flood.  Every Christian I've confronted with angular unconformities has run away.  And now look, he hasn't posted here since Wednesday.

 

Did I mention the fact, master, that I mentioned the angular unconformities on christianforums.com too, with exactly the same results you mention (utter silence from the cretinists)?

 

What do the Japanese say? "It's not a shame to learn from a true master"? Gee, tell me about that...

 

*bows thankfully to "Dr" Neil*

[Mr. Neil]

Just imagine their faces as they run to IRC and AiG only to find that there are no answers to be found on those sites. The angular unconformity is but one of the many pieces of evidence that creationists simply ignore, because they know they don't have the answer.

 

In the same way, I've never heard a creationist answer the challenge to account for the placement of fossils, both migrational and stratigraphical, nor the convergence thereof. They can't account for footprints and raindrop impressions existing from within stratigraphy. Their silly flood can't account for giant salt deposits, like the one under the lower penninsula of Michigan.

 

All of these evidences with register silence from creationists. They don't have answers, so their only option is to ignore them.

 

 

John Lovitz voice: Science!

[I Broke Free]

How to creationists explain the hundreds of thousands of years of snow pack in Antarctica and Greenland?

 

Just curious?

[Thurisaz]

John Lovitz voice: Science!

 

While that name doesn't ring a bell to me, would that sound similar to Thomas Dolby's main title of the outrageously funny old tv show "Misfits of science"?

 

"...then she blinded me with science... SCIENCE!"

[Thurisaz]

How to creationists explain the hundreds of thousands of years of snow pack in Antarctica and Greenland?

 

Just curious? 

 

<cretinist mode>

"The show layers at (insert place here) show that snow layers needn't be annual in nature, so the earth is 6000 years old!!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!!!!!!"

</cretinist mode>

 

On second thought, I've seen cretinists grasping for the literal straw of the "planes of the Lost Squadron" having been buried under so-and-so many feet of snow in some few decades. Of course, no decent scientist would claim that snow everywhere in the world accumulates at the same rate...

 

...but thinking for yourself is eeeeevil anyway, as we all know, so...

[Matthew]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HomeBoy.

 

Normally I do not weigh in on matters like these because I consider discussions about Kent Hovind or Carl Baugh to be a complete waste of time but being that you seem very confident that no one can answer Hovind or Baugh successfully, I would like to take some time and let you in on some facts about these guys. First off, your critics on this thread are right. Hovind recieved a fake degree from "Patriot University" which is a diploma mill. A brilliant chemist, Karen Bartelt, has done an excellent analysis of Hovind's "doctoral" work. She has no axe to grind because she would do the same with any evolutionist.

 

Carl Baugh likewise has academic problems. I cannot take any of these guys seriously. Why not, instead, rely on real creationist scientists like Johnny Sarfati? As much of an asshole as he can be at times, at least he has a legitimate Ph.D. in chemistry.

 

Matthew