quote: 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.
quote:* 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).
Someone pointed this out to me this evening. Could be more entertaining than a night of quicky trivia with Regis Philbin...
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
That's a rather impossible challenge, since 1,2, and 3 have nothing to do with evolution.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
1, 2 and 3 are also proven with high-level mathematics. Should some of the $250,000 go towards a few years of schooling so that he can understand the proofs?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, if someone did manage to prove everything on that list beyond the shadow of a doubt I'm pretty sure that they'd make a little more than $250,000. Not that they shouldn't milk this wanker for all he's worth, but still.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: milk this wanker
What a lovely choice of words, Bob...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
LOL
I'd also like to point out that that was from Bob the Lawyer, not me.
I'd also like to point out that the website proves this guy is a master debater.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I just wonder if this guy is going to demand experimental evidence for the creation of time:
"No, seriously! I just made some! Look -- there it went! And again! It's not MY fault you keep missing it, dude!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Evolution says nothing about the existence/nonexistence of God. Just like math -- I can prove that the PI is an irrational number without delving into the nature of God.
IIRC, Jodie Foster's character in Contact mad a similar observation. Science is a language that doesn't have the vocabulary to talk about such things.
quote: 1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Such a claim is unprovable. You can prove that they came into existence, and you can come up with a theory that explains everything without resorting to the existence of anything else, but that still doesn't prove that it did it by itself.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I thought this was going to be the latest P-web contest.
Ah, well.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Sigh... I wish it was a pweb contest too. That would mean that I HAD an extra $250,000 dollars lying around.
[ March 08, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Primal Curve: Mathmatical proof?
The way I understood things, it was mathmatical speculation. There is SO much they don't know about any of those processes that it is impossible to define all the terms mathmatically.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
His standards of proof are beyond what any scientific theory (including the theory that gravity is a property of mass) has ever been proved with.
The exact mechanism of number four, for instance, will never be well proven. Why? Because its too far back in time, and the organisms it happened to are the sort that don't exactly fossilize much (very, very tiny archaeobacteria like creatures). This isn't a failing of evolution -- we have several plausible speculative theories about it -- its a failing of available evidence. And, particularly in cases where there is guaranteed to be a lack of evidence, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
Number five, however, is remarkably hard to deny (yet he does). Take a look at, oh, fish. Yes, lets take a close look at fish.
I am not saying the latter evolved from the former, because that's likely silly -- these are modern species, both the product of fairly lengthy evolutionary processes (though not necessarily ones that changed them huge amounts).
I AM saying that their physiologies (beyond their looks, their internal physiologies are remarkably similar as well) are strongly suggestive that amphibians like salamanders could and did evolve from fish like lungfish. The difference between them is remarkably small, and far less than, say, the difference between a lungfish and a shark.
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
My dear Lord. . .does this man know nothing about science? Just the way he worded the challenge proves he needs to go back to college. Or at least high school. And the measly sum, I mean, really. . .
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
quote: Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote:I'd also like to point out that the website proves this guy is a master debater.
Every day in every way, Bob moves up my list of the awesomest people on the planet.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)