$250,000 reward for proving evolution

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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.