Jump to content


Photo

Kent h*vind's $250,000 Challange


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
10 replies to this topic

#1 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 13 August 2005 - 10:51 AM

The point of this topic is to discuss the offer itself. Let's stay away from criticizing h*vind's credentials or character. Lets focus on the legitimacy of the offer and whether or not its demands could be met if we begin from the assumption that the Theory of Evolution is indeed true.

The Offer:

“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.”


The asterisk leads to:

*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).


This text was saved on my computer and the link used to be located at

http://www.drdino.co.../250k/index.jsp

However the link in now inactive and I have been unable to locate were Mr. h*vind has moved this page. If anyone can find the new address to this link so that we may all verify the text above please list it.

#2 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 13 August 2005 - 11:17 PM

Yes, I see what you mean about the different types of evolution he lists. What he means, I believe, is that you have to provide empirical evidence for ONE of them, at least of course. He's not saying all. And I think also he is focusing on macroevolution. I'll try and find the link too, I haven't read it in a long time.

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2005 - 03:06 AM

I am curious on why this would bug you so you would have to keep tabs on it? If someone told me they would give me 250,000 if I could prove creation, I know that I could not to the point that it needs to be done. Even God's word say's it takes faith.

What H*vind is really doing here is showing that just like creation, evolution takes faith. Why? Like creation, it cannot be proven to an absolute. The thing about it is, I'm willing to admit that. But those who believe evolution don't won't to. Why? Theories have allowed science, and all that it supports, be built on half truths. And if not, then show me an absolute proven theory. But even science admits to this in their teaching, problem is. They apply their no absolutes to everything. It don't work that way. A truth does not become a lie just because I say so, and a lie does not become truth because I say so.

So if you believe something is true, but it's not provable to a absolute. then it takes faith to believe that it is an absolute. And faith equals religion.

#4 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 14 August 2005 - 08:37 AM

So if you believe something is true, but it's not provable to a absolute. then it takes faith to believe that it is an absolute. And faith equals religion.


Science, in its entire history, was never meant to claim absolutes, only certainties. Absolutes are for religion and philosophy. Nothing in Science is an absolute, not even the theory of Evolution.

So once an amount of certainty can be applied to a theory we accept it as most probable, however, it is not accepted as an absolute.

#5 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2005 - 07:09 PM

Science, in its entire history, was never meant to claim absolutes, only certainties.  Absolutes are for religion and philosophy.  Nothing in Science is an absolute, not even the theory of Evolution.

So once an amount of certainty can be applied to a theory we accept it as most probable, however, it is not accepted as an absolute.

View Post


So, if it's not a certainty, or a absolute, but only probable. What does it take to believe it is correct? What's the word used to believe something that cannot be proven?
John 20:
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Definition of faith:

religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"

#6 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 22 August 2005 - 11:57 AM

I am curious on why this would bug you so you would have to keep tabs on it? If someone told me they would give me 250,000 if I could prove creation, I know that I could not to the point that it needs to be done. Even God's word say's it takes faith.


It bothers me because it is pure chicanery. It is worded in such a way that even if evolution were absolutely correct it could not meet his criteria. Especially since h*vind's idea of "macroevolution" is one species giving birth to another.

#7 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 22 August 2005 - 12:04 PM

So if you believe something is true, but it's not provable to a absolute. then it takes faith to believe that it is an absolute. And faith equals religion.


Not in any anthropological sense of the word. Faith and religion are different. Religion is a set of mythologies supported by ritualistic behavior. It involves faith but it does not equal faith.

In the English language we use the word faith to mean many different things. When discussing religious issues I tend to adopt the definition that faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. However if you want to call faith confident belief in an idea then sure I have faith in evolution. Just like I have faith in atomic theory, germ theory, quantum mechanics, gravity, and so on.

#8 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 August 2005 - 02:31 PM

Not in any anthropological sense of the word.  Faith and religion are different.  Religion is a set of mythologies supported by ritualistic behavior.  It involves faith but it does not equal faith.


The Lord Jesus is not a myth. There is written testimony about what he did. You have to use faith to percieve it, but that does not mean that its not trust worthy.

Its a judicial case where you can decide for yourself whether you believe it or not.

However if you want to call faith confident belief in an idea then sure I have faith in evolution.  Just like I have faith in atomic theory, germ theory, quantum mechanics, gravity, and so on.


We can test and observe atomic theory, germ theory, etc,... We cannot test evolution because its an unobservable myth that has zero observable/testable science behind it.

Terry

#9 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 22 August 2005 - 04:49 PM

The Lord Jesus is not a myth. There is written testimony about what he did. You have to use faith to percieve it, but that does not mean that its not trust worthy.


I am sorry, perhaps I should have clarified. Mythology in the academic sense is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. Basically, a story that supports a metaphysical worldview. It doesn't mean that the story is or is not true.

In every day speech we throw the word myth around incorrectly to mean a half truth or something like that (sort of like how people throw the word theory around mean "wild guess"). That is not what I meant.

#10 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 August 2005 - 12:06 AM

The Lord Jesus is not a myth.  There is written testimony about what he did.  You have to use faith to percieve it, but that does not mean that its not trust worthy.

Its a judicial case where you can decide for yourself whether you believe it or not.
We can test and observe atomic theory, germ theory, etc,... We cannot test evolution because its an unobservable myth that has zero observable/testable science behind it.

Terry

View Post


Those who choose not to believe will always make a reference to God being a myth. It is how they justify a non-belief in God. Why use the word myth?

Definition:
An anonymous tale emerging from the traditional beliefs of a culture or social unit. Myths use supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. They may also explain cosmic issues like creation and death. Collections of myths, known as mythologies, are common to all cultures and nations, but the best-known myths belong to the Norse, Roman, and Greek mythologies. A famous myth is the story of Arachne, an arrogant young girl who challenged a goddess, Athena, to a weaving contest; when the girl won, Athena was enraged and turned Arachne into a spider, thus explaining the existence of spiders. :)


You see, to compare God to a myth, enables the non-believer to shrug off every part of God as a lie, but saying myth seems not as bad. But when you know how it's defined, then you realize it's actually worse than using the word lie, because with one word. You can totally deny God.

An unverifiable story based on a religious belief. The characters of myths are gods and goddesses, or the offspring of the mating of gods or godesses and humans. Some myths detail the creation of the earth, while others may be about love, adventure, trickery, or revenge. In all cases, it is the gods and goddesses who control events, while humans may be aided or victimized. It is said that the creation of myths were the method by which ancient, superstitious humans attempted to account for natural or historical phenomena.


But then again, The God of evolution (natural selection) can fit into this as well.

#11 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 10 September 2005 - 10:22 AM

The point of this topic is to discuss the offer itself.  Let's stay away from criticizing h*vind's credentials or character.  Lets focus on the legitimacy of the offer and whether or not its demands could be met if we begin from the assumption that the Theory of Evolution is indeed true.

The Offer:
The asterisk leads to:
This text was saved on my computer and the link used to be located at

http://www.drdino.co.../250k/index.jsp

However the link in now inactive and I have been unable to locate were Mr. h*vind has moved this page.  If anyone can find the new address to this link so that we may all verify the text above please list it.

View Post


The whole idea of his posting the offer was to show that evolution was not a proven fact, and that it couldn't be proven.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users