Thread: Here's some easy money

Lively creation site that highlights Dr. Hovind's offer of a $250000.00 award to anyone who presents credible proof of evolution.

Here's the link.. Creation Science Evangelism

How preposterous! It's a well known fact that all proof of evolution is planted by Satan!

Well, with all of the "proof" that I hear people speak of, the money is yet to be collected. Step up.

Well that prize is never gonna be won. The proof they want only comes from one source; a single two thousand year-old book. (And maybe one source cited haphazardly from a creationist "scientist"). If you looked at any scientific paper, or hell a freshman humanities paper, you'll find that having one source in a paper does not lend itself to a strong argument.

Are they looking for evolution or human evolution? You can watch small changes in evolution when watching single celled organisms alter their shape/function over their generations (days to weeks).

Without looking at the website, I'd suggest that they're biased and will dispute most/all efforts at proving evolution.

Even other young earth propanants and creationists think Dr. Hovind has a credibilty problem, and that he undermines their cause -- and that's really saying something.

The domestic dog, custom bred animals, fish with lungs, the bones of Australipithicus Afarensis, and various other things.Evolution is as proven as it can be given its nature. People who think the earth is only a few thousand years old are wrong, and I hate to say this and offend people but creationism is ridiculous. Evolution is real, and we have more evidence of this then of a cosmic zombie who goes around granting eternal life.

I believe the planet is over hundreds of millions of years old, but I'm also a firm believer that human life was deposited here. Consider:

Suppose someone told you that you alone were responsible for saving the entire human race. You were being given a spaceship that could travels hundreds of light years in ten years or so. Your first problem-how to feed and quench the thirst of an entire race of beings, as well as bathroom facilities-space on the ship to keep people from going kooky, launching a mutiny, etc.

So, how do you do it ?

A small crew and a large bank of frozen fertilized embryoes.

Your next obstacle-finding an M class planet and a suitable host species into whose wombs you can deposit the embryoes (have you ever seen footage of how gentle apes are with a real human baby, or a doll for that matter ?).

So, that explains the link between humans and apes, but I'd take it a bit further that there was some other experimentation (explaining the neanderthal/Cro magnon thing).

For more than 100 years, scientists have been looking for the "missing link" between man and ape, but notice that the theory of evolution is just that-a theory-an unproven hypothesis. Has there been some evolution on this planet ? Of course. Has it involved man ? Not really.

Come on Ditch, you shouldn't let J.P.'s comments rile you up so much.

Originally Posted by Dudester

For more than 100 years, scientists have been looking for the "missing link" between man and ape, but notice that the theory of evolution is just that-a theory-an unproven hypothesis. Has there been some evolution on this planet ? Of course. Has it involved man ? Not really.

Oh geez...

Science is all theory, man. Nothing is absolute in Science, only backed by current information. Heck using the word "proven" is frowned upon.
Human did not evolve from apes. We evolved from a predecessor to both our species.
And it's not like there's one single missing link of utter importance. There are a lot of links (hominid fossils) that show a certain hairless primate develop the physique to walk upright.

Originally Posted by Dudester

I believe the planet is over hundreds of millions of years old, but I'm also a firm believer that human life was deposited here. Consider:

Suppose someone told you that you alone were responsible for saving the entire human race. You were being given a spaceship that could travels hundreds of light years in ten years or so. Your first problem-how to feed and quench the thirst of an entire race of beings, as well as bathroom facilities-space on the ship to keep people from going kooky, launching a mutiny, etc.

So, how do you do it ?

A small crew and a large bank of frozen fertilized embryoes.

Your next obstacle-finding an M class planet and a suitable host species into whose wombs you can deposit the embryoes (have you ever seen footage of how gentle apes are with a real human baby, or a doll for that matter ?).

So, that explains the link between humans and apes, but I'd take it a bit further that there was some other experimentation (explaining the neanderthal/Cro magnon thing).

For more than 100 years, scientists have been looking for the "missing link" between man and ape, but notice that the theory of evolution is just that-a theory-an unproven hypothesis. Has there been some evolution on this planet ? Of course. Has it involved man ? Not really.

It's a nice argument, but we're still focusing on matter as we understand it. Even a few hundred light years worth of travel is a very small amount of distance in the greater scheme of things; where we can look at millions of light years between planets.

I'm more inclined to believe that both creationists and evolutionists are right. They just think their concepts inherently oppose the other.

When holy works say things like 'first god created the heavens and the earth, then created light, then something else' and so forth, I believe they're really describing the big bang. First there was only one substance and the void, then that substance exploded into light, creating fire, air, water, and eventually earth (matter). It's not a picture perfect translation, but I think there's value in the concept. When 'god created man and everything on earth', believe that there is a 'blue print' that allows selected items of matter to coalesce and form into more complex versions of matter. So hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water. This trait (the 'blue print') that dictates this as being possible has been designed by the 'creator'. In much the same way, every aspect of existence has been pre-planned, including how evolution occurs.

Originally Posted by guy_faukes

Come on Ditch, you shouldn't let J.P.'s comments rile you up so much.



Oh geez...

Science is all theory, man. Nothing is absolute in Science, only backed by current information. Heck using the word "proven" is frowned upon.

So, if I load a million pounds of rocket fuel in a rocket, and point it towards the moon, it'll get there ?

Originally Posted by guy_faukes

Human did not evolve from apes. We evolved from a predecessor to both our species.

What was that predecessor ? Where did it come from ?

Originally Posted by guy_faukes

And it's not like there's one single missing link of utter importance. There are a lot of links (hominid fossils) that show a certain hairless primate develop the physique to walk upright.

Really ?

Originally Posted by KrisMunro

I'm more inclined to believe that both creationists and evolutionists are right. They just think their concepts inherently oppose the other.

Which is what I'm saying with my "Interventionist Theory".

Well that prize is never gonna be won. The proof they want only comes from one source; a single two thousand year-old book.

Not true, they want tangible evidence that proves beyond all doubt that it is so, the money is yet to be claimed, it's yours if you can prove it.

You can watch small changes in evolution when watching single celled organisms alter their shape/function over their generations (days to weeks).

I wouldn't call the normal growth of single celled organisms evolution any more than a fetus developing from a few cells into a mature human.

I'd suggest that they're biased and will dispute most/all efforts at proving evolution.

Of course evolutionists aren't biased at all, are they?

Even other young earth propanants and creationists think Dr. Hovind has a credibilty problem, and that he undermines their cause -- and that's really saying something.

Just as some begin foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of Sarah Palin, any threat to the kingdom must be personally attacked.

I believe the planet is over hundreds of millions of years old, but I'm also a firm believer that human life was deposited here.

I believe in creation, but also believe that the earth is very old. Eric Von Danniken's theory is interesting and even possible, in my opinion. That does not shake my belief in creation. When I'm giving a patient report to a doctor I speak much differently than I do when explaining something to my 5 year old grand son. The Bible, although written to speak to an ignorant, primitive people, still holds people's interest today with it's truths. God never said "In this book is everything that there is.". He gave us more than we could possibly comprehend in a life time, but never felt the need to explain it all to people who couldn't understand it anyway.

Consider Job, when he finally broke and asked God, "Why me?" God answered. "Where were thou when I laid the cornerstone of the earth, and hung it's sphere on nothing?" The original language omits the word "sphere" but in Hebrew it is there.

There are a lot of links (hominid fossils) that show a certain hairless primate develop the physique to walk upright.

Finally a voice of reason, thank you Guy. If our planet were to be destroyed today and aliens examined the fossils, they might think our present day apes and we were related, look at the similarities. Many designs in nature just work well so they are repeated in the plant as well as the animal kingdom, that does not mean that they are related. Delivery systems such as blood vessels resemble trees in winter when the leaves are gone, or the veins in a leaf. Just as a whale's flipper has a bone structure similar to a man's hand. To suggest that an animal would "grow" lungs spontaneously, crawl up on land, develop legs then decide to return to the sea is stretching it a bit, don't you think?

I do believe that the Bible is true, but was written in a way that we can understand it. Many of the parables reflect deeper meanings than they appear on the surface. So, when it says God created light, I won't debate that he did it with a big bang, this does not prove anything to me other than he understood physics before we even knew what the word meant.

Do you really think, Ditch, this Doctor will ever give out his money? Someone could hand him the fossils in person that suggest very strongly that evolution is real (this is hypothetical; whether such fossils exist or not, I do not know), and I'm pretty sure the guy will shrug them off and clench onto his Bible. He doesn't want to be proven wrong, he wants to try to 'prove' to people that the Bible is true with no basis to accept that except the blinding hope of religion.

I don't think he'll ever hand away his money. It's a bad example of a point you're trying to make, Ditch.

Originally Posted by Ditch

To suggest that an animal would "grow" lungs spontaneously, crawl up on land, develop legs then decide to return to the sea is stretching it a bit, don't you think?

I'm thinking you've not looked into the evolutionary process much. Which is likely why you've equated the mutations seen within the generations of single celled organisms with a human embryo developing. There's a vast difference here, not merely in time but in the process itself.

When single celled organisms reproduce, they generally split in half, with each half nearly always growing to become a duplicate of the original. They reproduce quite quickly (very quickly in comparison to humans). Each time they split apart, there's a small chance of one side having a mutation. If that mutation aids in its survival, then that trait becomes more common (with the less desirable traits dying off). Over many thousands of generations, a species evolves and adapts to its environment via these mutations.

So no one is suggesting that an animal would spontaneously grow lungs. One creature might evolve over a great many generations with an ability to hold its breath rather than develop gills, while a sea-born creature may evolve with wings that it can fly with yet still breaths water. Each trait holds a specific advantage for that creature that relates to its survival.

Science has discerned a 'genetic path' that a human embryo traverses, while developing, that goes through the stages of evolution, all the way from a water based lifeform. Our developed bodies have vestigial traces of these, such as a tailbone, that serve no purpose in our current form. Human lungs breath liquid while in the womb, and doctors need to empty this out before infants take their first breath. We have a reptilian along with a mammalian component in our brains. They are called this because science has determined connections with our brains and those of the brains of creatures we share an evolutionary path with.

All through nature we have signs of evolution. And it presents as a gradual process. It's unfair to claim that because evolution doesn't happen spontaneously, that it must be gods work.

Having said all that, I do believe there is a missing link, and that humans were somehow created/modified from other life forms. That evolution exists doesn't discount the possibility that we were created. Again, these two concepts don't discount each other. The bible explains how the world was created, along with man, but I wonder whether the common Christian understanding of these events is anywhere near the truth of events.

I've always been a science enthusiast, and have never myself seen a reason to doubt the theory of evolution or the many other theories that young earth creationism contradicts. There really is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution if you're willing to see it. For instance, here's the link to the massive wikipedia article on this very thing, link here. It's obvious the scientific community accepts this evidence, but would Dr. Hovind?

Also, at the risk of sounding ad hominemy, a quick googling reveals Hovind got his degree at a diploma mill and is presently in jail for tax evasion. Is this really a person worthy of deciding what and what does not constitute evidence for evolution?

Off the top of my head I can think of a few things that I don't see how you could explain but through life changing over time. For instance, whale evolution. Not only is almost their entire transformation, from hippo-like dog things to ocean giants, frozen in the fossil record, but they have vestigial feet from their former land-lubbing selves. Link here.

Also, the idea of Earth, indeed the universe, being six-thousand years old goes against all contemporary science. One thing I don't know how you'd explain is simply looking up at the stars. Look at any other galaxy and you're looking millions of years into the past, which you quickly get by dividing their distance with the speed of light.