NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a great website on evolution. And if you think evolution is true, try to prove it and win $250,000!


http://www.drdino.com

Win here!
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

Thats impossible. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/) Hovind want's evidence on what he thinks is biological evolution, not what it really is.

Evolution is FASCINATING STUFF! I love the concepts and myraid possibilites inherent in our genes. ANYTHING could evolve! It's an amazing concept!

I have a very short little vignette written here to accompany a piano piece about what might happen to humansafter the ice caps melt. How would we survive?
http://zed.cbc.ca/go.ZeD?CONTENT_ID=117036&FILTER_KEY=27493&page=content

To paraphrase Stalin (or possibly Lenin or Trotsky - I have seen the original attributed to all each one)
"You may not be interested in evolution, but evolution is interested in you."

:P

Too many faults. Oh yeah, it is still a THEORY.

stupid people, challenging other people to prove a theory is true. Theories can only be proven false (allthough a false theory cannot always be prove false). And even theories that are believed to be proven false by science are still thought in schools and used by scientists and engineers around the world (example: the classic mechanics of newton). Theories are no objects that hold a boolean value, they are objects that hold a certain 'usability level': what you can do using the theory. usable theories get studied, useless theories, like creationisme (you can't do anything with it besides explaining why we exist), get dumped. If at any time different theories try to explain the same thing, the most useful one survives (sometimes even multiple theories survive if they all offer there own uses: example the theories on light). Therefor evolution is the only theory that is acceptable for science at the moment and is therefor believed to be true.

Too many faults. Oh yeah, it is still a THEORY.

Yes, it is. And your point is? Gravity is another one that is "still just a THEORY".
(If you are serious, you are ignorant of the definitions involved. Please go learn what the word theory means, as used in science. You sound like you may be joking, but I*m unsure, as too many ignorantly use this argument. If so, please ignore.)

You can't prove anything in science. Only mathematical "proofs" can be made.

And yes it's a theory, but theories are valid explanations until shown otherwise with evidence (and convincing evidence).

Here's an *actual* good site talking about evolution and teaching it.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Ha, ha. Can we say DOG PILE THE CREATIONIST!

Too many faults. Oh yeah, it is still a THEORY.

Yes, it is. And your point is? Gravity is another one that is "still just a THEORY".
(If you are serious, you are ignorant of the definitions involved. Please go learn what the word theory means, as used in science. You sound like you may be joking, but I*m unsure, as too many ignorantly use this argument. If so, please ignore.)
Even Heliocentrism and the Round Earth concept are theories. They have a lot of support, as does evolution...

Too many faults.

name one

At first I thought you had something interesting.

However, I see Kent Hovind changed his page.

Hate to tell you. He is nothing more then a crank and a liar. Some of his "claims" have been shown wrong and yet he continues to parrot the same line.

People have submitted stuff for the claim and he either does not respond or says "They never received it"

Sorry, there are creationists that I would sit down a listen to their claims.

This liar is a waste of time.

Take a look here....

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

Too many faults. Oh yeah, it is still a THEORY.

Yes, it is. And your point is? Gravity is another one that is "still just a THEORY".
(If you are serious, you are ignorant of the definitions involved. Please go learn what the word theory means, as used in science. You sound like you may be joking, but I*m unsure, as too many ignorantly use this argument. If so, please ignore.)
Even Heliocentrism and the Round Earth concept are theories. They have a lot of support, as does evolution...

:D Like I said, DOG PILE!

Evolution is a pretty crappy WM...


But seriously...evolution is NOT "just a theory". Evolution is an empirically observed FACT. There are several theories as to how evolution occurs (natural selection being one of them) but that species change over time into different species is an observable FACT.

Evolution is a pretty crappy WM...


But seriously...evolution is NOT "just a theory". Evolution is an empirically observed FACT. There are several theories as to how evolution occurs (natural selection being one of them) but that species change over time into different species is an observable FACT.
No, evolution is a theory. I've never seen any school teach it as anything other than theory. Hell my bio teacher said that there are no scientific facts, they're all theories.

In response to that website, I'd like to offer an alternative:

I offer $250,000 to the first person who can prove to me, using 'Empirical Evidence Only' that a Diety exists. You may either present your findings in paper format or through a presentation, both of which will be viewed by a board of my colleagues.**

In order to win this prize you must prove:

1. God does, in fact, exist

2. This God created the universe.

3. This God partook in the creation of the human species as well as the creation of you and me, specifically.

4. There is a heaven

5. There is a hell

6. If I perform an act that has been listed in the bible as a sin, I will in fact (should I fail to seek forgiveness for this act) be sent to Hell.

7. If I pray to God for forgiveness of my worldly sins and choose to believe in Him whole-heartedly, I will go to Heaven

** This board of colleagues has in no way, shape, or form earned some form of credential in this specific subject. They will simply base their opinions and their finial descion on common sense, which they do posses in moderation (which is more than I can say for most human beings).

DISCLAIMER: There is absolutely NO WAY that you can win this contest and the $250,000 prize. Religion CAN NOT be proven using the same "Empirical Evidence" as televangalists would like you to provide in proving evolution. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WRITING ANY RESPONSES TO THIS POST IN ORDER TO TRY TO SWAY MY OPINION. No such evidence exists. Miracles are based on ones specific beliefs and point of view. The persons, places, and things in the Bible do not count, seeing has how using the Bible to prove the existance of the diety that it promotes is a form of circular logic, and holds no ground in a normal argument.

(a challenge, with disclaimer)
Nice! I've always liked logic....

Oh yeah!

I really like evolution.

Dear Evolution,

Do you like me?

check this box:

Yes [] No [] maybe[]

(a challenge, with disclaimer)
Nice! I've always liked logic....


Logic has never been above satire or sarcasm.

On a completely different note, related to the previouse quote and comment none whatsoever:

I wish people would open their eyes and stop taking everything so literally and personally. So many good jokes have gone to waste because of those high-and-mighty, politically correct, up-tight, pompous sons of b*tches who just can pull the stick out their ass.

Ow. Creationists make my head hurt.

For starters, Hovind is nothing but an attention-craving crank. Even if you brought the thickheaded ignoramus back in time to the synthesis of the first organic molecule and showed him evolution, he wouldn't give you his prize or admit his fault.

Crabcake, your biology teacher was probably just trying to be "unbiased" in his/her teaching. Does your school have something of an "equal time" regulation for evolution and other origin theories? just a question.
I want to second G Bugles, Free Soviets, and the others, especially Overwhelming Logic (i love turning around the opponents faulty arguments to watch them squirm) for being so logical and rational.

Creationists came from apes!

-Mentholyptus

I don't know if its true but I read somewhere that on his deadbed even Darwin disagreed with his 'own' theory of evolution. A theory of evolution that he stole from another scientist :P

Evoluuuuuuution!
We love you evoluuuuuution!
Don't ever leave us......evoluuuuuuuution!

Evoluuuuuuuuution!
Evoluuuu---uuu---uuuution!
Why?
...
...
...
No I won't rip off Pearl Jam, sorry.

I don't know if its true but I read somewhere that on his deadbed even Darwin disagreed with his 'own' theory of evolution. A theory of evolution that he stole from another scientist :P

yeah, that's the lady hope story. a completely and utterly false story made up by a person that had most likely never even met darwin, let alone been with him at his deathbed.

and he didn't steal anything, so much as build upon the work of others. he did, however, publish just before wallace did after procrastinating for some years.

Ah, evolution, I love this stuff! :P

I don't know if its true but I read somewhere that on his deadbed even Darwin disagreed with his 'own' theory of evolution. A theory of evolution that he stole from another scientist :P

yeah, that's the lady hope story. a completely and utterly false story made up by a person that had most likely never even met darwin, let alone been with him at his deathbed.

and he didn't steal anything, so much as build upon the work of others. he did, however, publish just before wallace did after procrastinating for some years.

And you were there, right? Right next to him. You sure sound like you think you were... :roll: Oh wait, someone told you... :lol: At least I admit that I don't know if my data is correct. You? You already invested blind faith in the popular version of what happened. :cry:

I don't know if its true but I read somewhere that on his deadbed even Darwin disagreed with his 'own' theory of evolution.

yeah, that's the lady hope story. a completely and utterly false story made up by a person that had most likely never even met darwin, let alone been with him at his deathbed.

And you were there, right? Right next to him. You sure sound like you think you were... :roll: Oh wait, someone told you... :lol: At least I admit that I don't know if my data is correct. You? You already invested blind faith in the popular version of what happened. :cry:

nah, i just take the word of darwin's family who actually was there. they shot down her story when it first appeared. check it out, even answers in genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp) says the lady hope story sucks.

Too many faults.

name one

man, no one ever wants to play...

I don't know if its true but I read somewhere that on his deadbed even Darwin disagreed with his 'own' theory of evolution.

yeah, that's the lady hope story. a completely and utterly false story made up by a person that had most likely never even met darwin, let alone been with him at his deathbed.

And you were there, right? Right next to him. You sure sound like you think you were... :roll: Oh wait, someone told you... :lol: At least I admit that I don't know if my data is correct. You? You already invested blind faith in the popular version of what happened. :cry:

nah, i just take the word of darwin's family who actually was there. they shot down her story when it first appeared. check it out, even answers in genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp) says the lady hope story sucks.

Taking the word of a family you never met still amounts to investing blind faith in hearsay. One source saying the Lady Hope story sucks doesn't constitute proof it didn't happen... Nice try though :)

nah, i just take the word of darwin's family who actually was there. they shot down her story when it first appeared. check it out, even answers in genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp) says the lady hope story sucks.

Taking the word of a family you never met still amounts to investing blind faith in hearsay. One source saying the Lady Hope story sucks doesn't constitute proof it didn't happen... Nice try though :)

heh, you're silly. dude, its answers in genesis - the creationists that wish other creationists would stop saying ridiculously stupid (and blatantly false) things so as to not reflect poorly on their own slightly less stupid claims.

illich jackals right
you cant prove somethings right, you can only prove it wrong. the guy on the website should go look up peter hemple's ideas on "evidence"
i cant be bothered writing about them but they make more sense then that site

Taking the word of a family you never met still amounts to investing blind faith in hearsay. One source saying the Lady Hope story sucks doesn't constitute proof it didn't happen... Nice try though :)

Kinda like believing in a 'magic' book written by people you never met, huh?

I like evolution. The theory is useful in breeding animals, genetic engineering, and computer programming. If the creationist theory was useful we'd be using that in improving animals, programming etc...

Arguing religion and evolution is missing the point of religion, which is god is love and distracts for religion’s better points.

This is a great website on evolution. And if you think evolution is true, try to prove it and win $250,000!


http://www.drdino.com

Win here!
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

It's not a great website on evolution, it's a very, very biased one.

I don't know if its true but I read somewhere that on his deadbed even Darwin disagreed with his 'own' theory of evolution. A theory of evolution that he stole from another scientist :P

yeah, that's the lady hope story. a completely and utterly false story made up by a person that had most likely never even met darwin, let alone been with him at his deathbed.

and he didn't steal anything, so much as build upon the work of others. he did, however, publish just before wallace did after procrastinating for some years.


The Lady Hope story is indeed false. Check out this link
www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul4.htm

In response to that website, I'd like to offer an alternative:

I offer $250,000 to the first person who can prove to me, using 'Empirical Evidence Only' that a Diety exists. You may either present your findings in paper format or through a presentation, both of which will be viewed by a board of my colleagues.**

In order to win this prize you must prove:

1. God does, in fact, exist

2. This God created the universe.

3. This God partook in the creation of the human species as well as the creation of you and me, specifically.

4. There is a heaven

5. There is a hell

6. If I perform an act that has been listed in the bible as a sin, I will in fact (should I fail to seek forgiveness for this act) be sent to Hell.

7. If I pray to God for forgiveness of my worldly sins and choose to believe in Him whole-heartedly, I will go to Heaven

** This board of colleagues has in no way, shape, or form earned some form of credential in this specific subject. They will simply base their opinions and their finial descion on common sense, which they do posses in moderation (which is more than I can say for most human beings).

DISCLAIMER: There is absolutely NO WAY that you can win this contest and the $250,000 prize. Religion CAN NOT be proven using the same "Empirical Evidence" as televangalists would like you to provide in proving evolution. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WRITING ANY RESPONSES TO THIS POST IN ORDER TO TRY TO SWAY MY OPINION. No such evidence exists. Miracles are based on ones specific beliefs and point of view. The persons, places, and things in the Bible do not count, seeing has how using the Bible to prove the existance of the diety that it promotes is a form of circular logic, and holds no ground in a normal argument.

Hey can I receive my reward after you die? LOL! Everything should come into view then!

Taking the word of a family you never met still amounts to investing blind faith in hearsay. One source saying the Lady Hope story sucks doesn't constitute proof it didn't happen... Nice try though :)

Wow. You take the term skepticism and flip it on its head. I guess you never watch the news or read the paper because that simply amounts to blind faith in hearsay. Why stop there? You should run off and hide in a cave somewhere since a person so skeptical has no reason to believe anything that is said, written, or shown to them.

In fact, how do you know your own senses aren't lying to you? You know, the world isn't actually real, it's all just a figment of your imagination. You don't know anything is true and you can never prove that either you or I exist. In fact, I'm just a bot - a clever little program designed to make statements that contradict yours.

*pats you on the head* Now, go play nice with all the other kids and leave us big folks to logical and rational discussions.

Taking the word of a family you never met still amounts to investing blind faith in hearsay. One source saying the Lady Hope story sucks doesn't constitute proof it didn't happen... Nice try though :)

Wow. You take the term skepticism and flip it on its head. I guess you never watch the news or read the paper because that simply amounts to blind faith in hearsay. Why stop there? You should run off and hide in a cave somewhere since a person so skeptical has no reason to believe anything that is said, written, or shown to them.

In fact, how do you know your own senses aren't lying to you? You know, the world isn't actually real, it's all just a figment of your imagination. You don't know anything is true and you can never prove that either you or I exist. In fact, I'm just a bot - a clever little program designed to make statements that contradict yours.

*pats you on the head* Now, go play nice with all the other kids and leave us big folks to logical and rational discussions.

Yo Decartes,.... save it! :lol:

BTW You really have a way of making a fool of yourself. :D

This is a great website on evolution. And if you think evolution is true, try to prove it and win $250,000!


http://www.drdino.com

Win here!
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

It's not a great website on evolution, it's a very, very biased one.

Oh and the evolutionists aren't very biased? :lol:

This is a great website on evolution. And if you think evolution is true, try to prove it and win $250,000!


http://www.drdino.com

Win here!
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

It's not a great website on evolution, it's a very, very biased one.

Oh and the evolutionists aren't very biased? :lol:

Well they maybe biased as to their views(macro vs micro for example) but overall no. If Evolution could be proved wrong, many would abandon it.

Yo Decartes,.... save it! :lol:

BTW You really have a way of making a fool of yourself. :D

:lol: :lol: :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ^_^ KAWAII! kkthxbahbai! ^_^ :o :lol: :o :lol: :o :lol: :o :lol: :shock: :D

This is a great website on evolution. And if you think evolution is true, try to prove it and win $250,000!


http://www.drdino.com

Win here!
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

It's not a great website on evolution, it's a very, very biased one.

Oh and the evolutionists aren't very biased? :lol:

Well they maybe biased as to their views(macro vs micro for example) but overall no. If Evolution could be proved wrong, many would abandon it.

The only thing that evolutionists have is circumstantial evidence at best. The fact that so many cling to that as being conclusive evidence that their sacred theory of evolution is right is only further evidence of how very biased they are.

Also, the question is not "Can they prove if the theory of evolution is wrong?" but "Can they prove it is right?". Thus far they have completely failed at this. In fact, the only thing they have proven is that they are no closer to proving that their theory is correct than the creationists have.

Taking the word of a family you never met still amounts to investing blind faith in hearsay. One source saying the Lady Hope story sucks doesn't constitute proof it didn't happen... Nice try though :)

Kinda like believing in a 'magic' book written by people you never met, huh?

:lol:

That thought did cross my mind...

The only thing that evolutionists have is circumstantial evidence at best.
No. The gradual change of a species's genetic makeup over time can be easily observed--witness, for instance, how insecticides become ineffective over time. This is evolution.

This is a great website on evolution. And if you think evolution is true, try to prove it and win $250,000!


http://www.drdino.com

Win here!
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

that thing is not only a scam, but the site's rertarded and the guy obviously has no knowledge of science.

Also, the question is not "Can they prove if the theory of evolution is wrong?" but "Can they prove it is right?". Thus far they have completely failed at this. In fact, the only thing they have proven is that they are no closer to proving that their theory is correct than the creationists have.

Sorry but you have it wrong. You don't prove things right, you prove them wrong.

You make a hypothesis then you go about trying to prove it wrong. If it withstands attacks, it becomes a theory. Then the same process happens all over again.....

The only thing that evolutionists have is circumstantial evidence at best.
No. The gradual change of a species's genetic makeup over time can be easily observed--witness, for instance, how insecticides become ineffective over time. This is evolution.

The gradual change of a species's genetic make-up does not constitute proof that the theory of evolution is fact. Again, it is at best circumstantial evidence.

Mind you, I neither hold belief in the evolutionist's version of what happened or in the creationists' version of what happened. I say that we simply don't know. And that what both the evolutionists and creationists have done is create a theory based on a BELIEF. A preconceived conviction.

You are, of course, free to be the first human to conclusively proof that the evolutionists are right. That we indeed decended from apes, who in turn decended from fish :)

Also, the question is not "Can they prove if the theory of evolution is wrong?" but "Can they prove it is right?". Thus far they have completely failed at this. In fact, the only thing they have proven is that they are no closer to proving that their theory is correct than the creationists have.

Sorry but you have it wrong. You don't prove things right, you prove them wrong.

You make a hypothesis then you go about trying to prove it wrong. If it withstands attacks, it becomes a theory. Then the same process happens all over again.....

And since when must a theory by definition be true because no one can prove it wrong?... Thats like saying "You can't conclusively prove God doesn't exist so he MUST exist!"... :cry:

The only thing that evolutionists have is circumstantial evidence at best.
No. The gradual change of a species's genetic makeup over time can be easily observed--witness, for instance, how insecticides become ineffective over time. This is evolution.

The gradual change of a species's genetic make-up does not constitute proof that the theory of evolution is fact.

No, that is in fact the very definition of biological evolution.

The "theory" part involves WHY and HOW evolution happens. That it DOES happen is indisputable fact.

The gradual change of a species's genetic make-up does not constitute proof that the theory of evolution is fact. Again, it is at best circumstantial evidence.


that is evolution. evolution is change in a species over generations.

at least learn what it is that you're saying it wrong first.

The gradual change of a species's genetic make-up does not constitute proof that the theory of evolution is fact. Again, it is at best circumstantial evidence.


that is evolution. evolution is change in a species over generations.

at least learn what it is that you're saying it wrong first.

I was talking about the Theory of Evolution... duh! I never argued that there is evolution. What I argue is that the Theory of Evolution, which takes the concept of evolution to the extreme, is fact. Personally I think it isn't.

At least pay attention when you are reading.

No, that is in fact the very definition of biological evolution.

The "theory" part involves WHY and HOW evolution happens. That it DOES happen is indisputable fact.

Again, I wasn't questioning biological evolution but the theory of evolution.

Which is why I said that the gradual change of a species's genetic make-up does not constitute proof that the theory of evolution is fact.

There is no "Theory of Evolution". That's just it. Evolution is an empirically observable fact, not some abstract theory.

There are theories as to how evolution occurs--including, for instance, natural selection. But your claim that there is some "theory of evolution" is absurd.

I was talking about the Theory of Evolution... duh! I never argued that there is evolution. What I argue is that the Theory of Evolution, which takes the concept of evolution to the extreme, is fact. Personally I think it isn't.

At least pay attention when you are reading.

what? you argue that if an animals passes on more of its genes, its genes won't continue onto the next generation? and should this animal have some kidn of mutation in its genes, that those genes don't get passed on too?

i get the feeling you're equating evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang.

I was talking about the Theory of Evolution... duh! I never argued that there is evolution. What I argue is that the Theory of Evolution, which takes the concept of evolution to the extreme, is fact. Personally I think it isn't.

At least pay attention when you are reading.

what? you argue that if an animals passes on more of its genes, its genes won't continue onto the next generation? and should this animal have some kidn of mutation in its genes, that those genes don't get passed on too?

i get the feeling you're equating evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang.

No, what I argue is that the theory of evolution takes the concept of evolution too far. They have yet to prove that circumstances were such that it really was necessary for the species to evolve in the way they believe they did.

I was talking about the Theory of Evolution... duh! I never argued that there is evolution. What I argue is that the Theory of Evolution, which takes the concept of evolution to the extreme, is fact. Personally I think it isn't.

At least pay attention when you are reading.

what? you argue that if an animals passes on more of its genes, its genes won't continue onto the next generation? and should this animal have some kidn of mutation in its genes, that those genes don't get passed on too?

i get the feeling you're equating evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang.

No, what I argue is that the theory of evolution takes the concept of evolution too far. They have yet to prove that circumstances were such that it really was necessary for the species to evolve in the way they believe they did, and also that those those species were able to evolve to the extend they believe they did.

I was talking about the Theory of Evolution... duh! I never argued that there is evolution. What I argue is that the Theory of Evolution, which takes the concept of evolution to the extreme, is fact. Personally I think it isn't.

well, to get technical we cannot know whether a scientific theory is literally and universally true from our epistemological standpoint - we simply do not have all of the relevant facts that could be used to test the theory. all we really have are models that describe and explain the facts we do have and have the remarkable abilty so far to describe and explain facts we got later.

but assuming that some form of induction does work and can be used to justify beliefs, then a theory that has been tested and confirmed enough (whatever that means) it seems to me would be reasonable to call 'factual'. or at least that the structures and relationships in the theory actually map on to real things in the universe.

bump

I was talking about the Theory of Evolution... duh! I never argued that there is evolution. What I argue is that the Theory of Evolution, which takes the concept of evolution to the extreme, is fact. Personally I think it isn't.

At least pay attention when you are reading.

what? you argue that if an animals passes on more of its genes, its genes won't continue onto the next generation? and should this animal have some kidn of mutation in its genes, that those genes don't get passed on too?

i get the feeling you're equating evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang.

No, what I argue is that the theory of evolution takes the concept of evolution too far. They have yet to prove that circumstances were such that it really was necessary for the species to evolve in the way they believe they did, and also that those those species were able to evolve to the extend they believe they did.


I am curious as to your definition of too far. Throw out some comments.

Again, you don't seem to get it. You don't go about proving a theory, you attack it.

Also species evolve because they have to. In the world there are speicalists that fill certain nitches. Of the links posted there are examples of benificial mutations.

Finally, species? Ever hear of survial of the fittest? Why is it that African Monkeys would wipe out the Lemurs of Madagasgar if they were ever introduced?

No, what I argue is that the theory of evolution takes the concept of evolution too far. They have yet to prove that circumstances were such that it really was necessary for the species to evolve in the way they believe they did, and also that those those species were able to evolve to the extend they believe they did.

This is why it is called a 'theory' and not a 'proof'. As Free Soviets has pointed out, it is impossible to prove that a throy is correct. The best that we can do is fail to falsify it after repeated attempts. So far we have not found any knock-down falsifications of the theory, and it remains the most scientifically convincing description of how we came to be here. No one is claiming that it is definitely true, or if they are, they are doing so with a lack of evidence and a basic misunderstanding of the philosophy of science.