$250,000 reward for proving evolution

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990

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 ]

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

[Hopey]

Ugh...his website reads exactly like one of Sharkey's posts.

Why do these creationists always come off so arrogant and pompous?

[Hopey]

Ugh...how can anyone take this guy seriously?

"How did marsupials get to Australia?

Noah was charged with building the vessel to safeguard certain animals during this massive and complex worldwide disaster; not with distributing them afterwards. Once Noah released the animals on Mount Ararat, natural instincts and climatic conditions determined how the redistribution of the animal population took place."

[miajag]

I'll give him $100 billion if he can prove creation.

[guesswest]

Since when does evolution argue that 'time, space and matter came into being by themselves'?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give him $100 billion if he can prove creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give him $100 billion, plus my soul.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Prove beyond reasonable doubt* that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.** Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

* "Beyond reasonable doubt" means beyond Kent Hovind's doubt which he, who is creating this challenge, assumes to be reasonable. There are no judges, so basically all this means is that you have to convince the challenger of something. So basically the challenge is to convince someone who has no incentive to be convinced (and in fact a very strong incentive NOT to be convinced) of something, which is impossible.

** "Only empirical evidence will do" is a way of making the challenge unbeatable, because evolution is a synthesis of empirical evidence. He is asking at what point a species arose from a different species, despite the fact that speciation takes more than one generation. The necessary synthesis of empirical evidence to factually derive that (which has been done) is not the empirical evidence itself. As such, he has invalidated the scientific method as a means of convincing him of evolution's existence for the purposes of the challenge.

The only way to meet the challenge is to prove to him that evolution is directly, empirically observable. You'd have to show him a dog being born from a cat, and hope that he didn't find a way not to be convinced (which, considering he doesn't want to lose a quarter mill and considering the OTHER things he believes, shouldn't be hard to do).



I hereby offer $250,000 to anyone who can convince me beyond reasonable doubt, using only empirical evidence, that Keynesian economics works. (See? It's impossible)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll give him $100 billion if he can prove creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give him $100 billion, plus my soul.

[/ QUOTE ]
bible -> bible
bible-> creation
qed

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll give him $100 billion if he can prove creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give him $100 billion, plus my soul.

[/ QUOTE ]
bible -> bible
bible-> creation
qed

[/ QUOTE ]

wow.

Is that going to be a lump sum or monthly payments?

[Metric]

I realize that it's not physics, and I don't typically have as much contempt for evolution critics as some others here, but I do have to say that this one does earn an immediate 10 points on Baez's crackpot index (number 13).

"10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll give him $100 billion if he can prove creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give him $100 billion, plus my soul.

[/ QUOTE ]
bible -> bible
bible-> creation
qed

[/ QUOTE ]

wow.

Is that going to be a lump sum or monthly payments?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll mail him my soul first. He should get it in 4-6 weeks.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll mail him my soul first. He should get it in 4-6 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a guy.

I guess we should all start sucking up to chez for money now.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll mail him my soul first. He should get it in 4-6 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a guy.

I guess we should all start sucking up to chez for money now.

[/ QUOTE ]
What a con, apparently his soul already belongs to something called partygaming. Don't suppose I'll get the money either.

chez

[Sharkey]

The purpose of the offer seems to be publicity for the website (such as it is getting here). The standard of evidence is much higher than what is customary in science.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of the offer seems to be publicity for the website (such as it is getting here). The standard of evidence is much higher than what is customary in science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for the best laugh of the day (before 9 pm, when Steven Wright takes the stage).

[Sharkey]

Coming from a clown, I take that as a compliment, but what are you talking about?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Coming from a clown, I take that as a compliment, but what are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, oh ad hominem ad hominem

go back under the bridge, troll

[Sharkey]

You’re not making sense. Are you trying to communicate something related to the OP?

[SWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The standard of evidence is much higher than what is customary in science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, the standard is whatever Hovind will accept, which is generally far below what a scientist has to present. Also far below the normal standards is Hovind's knowledge of the topic - his definition of what is to be proven does not match any reasonably common statement of the theory of evolution. Finally, his understanding of how scientific theories work is pretty flawed - nobody sits around working out how to prove the Germ Theory of Disease is true, they keep on trying to find things it can't explain and as they fail to do so, scientists become more confident that the theory's useful. Same for Gravity, or Relativity, or Evolution, or any other scientific theory.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The standard of evidence is much higher than what is customary in science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, the standard is whatever Hovind will accept, which is generally far below what a scientist has to present. Also far below the normal standards is Hovind's knowledge of the topic - his definition of what is to be proven does not match any reasonably common statement of the theory of evolution. Finally, his understanding of how scientific theories work is pretty flawed - nobody sits around working out how to prove the Germ Theory of Disease is true, they keep on trying to find things it can't explain and as they fail to do so, scientists become more confident that the theory's useful. Same for Gravity, or Relativity, or Evolution, or any other scientific theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

mirror mirror on the wall

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
... the standard is whatever Hovind will accept ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, which sets the standard indefinitely high, including to whatever height becomes necessary to avoid awarding the prize. Not that I know this to be the intention, but the stated terms don’t rule it out.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...his definition of what is to be proven does not match any reasonably common statement of the theory of evolution ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like Sharkey /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which sets the standard indefinitely high, including to whatever height becomes necessary to avoid awarding the prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Judging by Hovind's other writings, I disagree that "whatever Hovind will accept" implies a high standard. Quite the opposite, it implies no standard exists at all, and judgement will be based on whether the evidence agrees with what Hovind has already decided.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which sets the standard indefinitely high, including to whatever height becomes necessary to avoid awarding the prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Judging by Hovind's other writings, I disagree that "whatever Hovind will accept" implies a high standard. Quite the opposite, it implies no standard exists at all, and judgement will be based on whether the evidence agrees with what Hovind has already decided.

[/ QUOTE ]

...just like Sharkey!

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which sets the standard indefinitely high, including to whatever height becomes necessary to avoid awarding the prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Judging by Hovind's other writings, I disagree that "whatever Hovind will accept" implies a high standard. Quite the opposite, it implies no standard exists at all, and judgement will be based on whether the evidence agrees with what Hovind has already decided.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s just my point. Such a “no standard at all” DOES NOT EXCLUDE setting however high a standard may be necessary to avoid issuing the prize, regardless of whether there is any intention to do so.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
a “no standard at all” DOES NOT EXCLUDE setting however high a standard

[/ QUOTE ]

Your usual way of arguing, Sharkey! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

You guys do understand that Sharkey is agreeing that Hovind is a tool, right? Dont let your zeal for disagreeing with Sharkey cloud your reading comprehension skills.

[MidGe]

vhawk1,

I have no misunderstanding.

It doesn't make his argument (as I quoted) less amusing. On top of it, I think Sharkey does this only to "appear" more reasonable than he really is. Pity, but par for the course, that in his support there is such a glaring fault in his logic. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[guesswest]

His argument as you quoted is just gibberish, because you quoted half a sentence entirely out of context. His argument as he presented it makes perfect sense - and as far as I can tell, he's agreeing with you.

[vhawk01]

Thats how I read the thread thus far, guess, and it just seemed like undue Sharkey-bashing to me. There is plenty of cause for Sharkey-bashing...this just isn't it.

[MidGe]

guesswest,

[ QUOTE ]
and as far as I can tell, he's agreeing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and as I said in other words, the fact that he agrees with me based on some gibberish of his, doesn't enhance my credibility. LOL

[SWB]

[ QUOTE ]
That’s just my point. Such a “no standard at all” DOES NOT EXCLUDE setting however high a standard may be necessary to avoid issuing the prize, regardless of whether there is any intention to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is your point, you've termed it badly. A standard presupposes some kind of vaguely objective system. Claiming that Hovind's complete lack of objectivity represents some kind of higher standard, which was the original claim I responded to, is obviously false. Claiming that Hovind's complete lack of objectivity allows him to refuse to award the prize is clearly true, but has nothing to do with whether he has a higher standard of proof than scientists in general.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
guesswest,

[ QUOTE ]
and as far as I can tell, he's agreeing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and as I said in other words, the fact that he agrees with me based on some gibberish of his, doesn't enhance my credibility. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

The two amazing things in this thread are that Sharkey either doesnt see himself in Hovind's attacks on the scientific method or is pretending not to, and that posters other than Midge don't see his almost certain motivation for pretending not to.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
guesswest,

[ QUOTE ]
and as far as I can tell, he's agreeing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and as I said in other words, the fact that he agrees with me based on some gibberish of his, doesn't enhance my credibility. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

The two amazing things in this thread are that Sharkey either doesnt see himself in Hovind's attacks on the scientific method or is pretending not to, and that posters other than Midge don't see his almost certain motivation for pretending not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely with Midge (and you). The fact that Sharkey seems to be turning his back on Hovind only serves to make him a hypocrite.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That’s just my point. Such a “no standard at all” DOES NOT EXCLUDE setting however high a standard may be necessary to avoid issuing the prize, regardless of whether there is any intention to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is your point, you've termed it badly. A standard presupposes some kind of vaguely objective system. Claiming that Hovind's complete lack of objectivity represents some kind of higher standard, which was the original claim I responded to, is obviously false. Claiming that Hovind's complete lack of objectivity allows him to refuse to award the prize is clearly true, but has nothing to do with whether he has a higher standard of proof than scientists in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

My terminology is correct for what I mean to say.

A careful investigator avoids jumping to conclusions. Though there certainly is the appearance of unfair play, it’s bad form to make sweeping statements using information from your “mind reading” skills. It’s better to base one’s case on hard facts. What we can say from the site is that the offer of reward has left an “out” such that, if confronted by the data of a serious researcher, the ante can always be raised to some higher standard not being met.

The offer’s ambiguity leaves access to all standards, high and low.

[Bataglin]

Hehe, awesome /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Case Closed]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was taught that fruit flys were really good solid evidence that evolution does happen. This may not be what he is looking for, but it's pretty close right?

[madnak]

Microevolution definitely happens. Undeniably. However, he specifically excludes that. He includes, however, the big bang and the creation of the planets and a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with evolution.

[Ringo]

AKAIK, Hovind groups both biological and cosmic evolution in the same basket - and has admitted that nothing short of recreating the big bang in the lab will suffice as proof.

He's an interesting character though, and very intelligent. I still think he's a donk though - like a smooth talking snake-oil salesman /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ringo