natural selection V. creationism

[speshall mareens]

this debate has been going on for hundreds of years and has seeped into other threads concerning dinos, not this, so i decided to make a thread for that debate. i think that natural selection is right because of all the evidence supporting it. wee have traced the evolutionary lineage of every land mammal predator to a tree climding mammal the size of a cat.

[Fearisgood]

wee have traced the evolutionary lineage of every land mammal predator to a tree climbing mammal the size of a cat.

Interesting, i didn't know this, any peer-reviewed article you can refer me to. I don't think any creationist will argue that natural selection doesn't exist, just that all the animals were created with the ability to adapt. Natural selection is "adapt or die". I have not seen any empirical reproducible data/evidence pointing to the theory that all living matter evolved from a single cell organism, just circumstantial evidence like:

a) radiometric dating-assumptions that decay is constant etc

geology

c) genome comparisons, which is not exactly a science because junk DNA cant predict the complexity of the organism...

d) and the assumption that natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms. This has not been empirically proven and reproduced.

Another thing i cannot get is the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are exclusive theories. Where did that single-celled organism come from. Is evolution then a creationist theory to start with then? I think the "natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms" equation falls in the same realm as abiogenesis, both have to be proven empirically and repeated. The first does have an extreme amount of circumstantial evidence pointing toward it though, but thats it... a lot of circumstantial evidence, nothing more. OJ Simpson anyone

I don't know which theory to believe, creationists have so many different crackpot theories and seem only to look for holes in evolution theory.

I think most creationism theories and natural selection are not at odds to answer your question.

[frogfish]

We have had WAY too many threads on this topic....

d) and the assumption that natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms. This has not been empirically proven and reproduced.

Another thing i cannot get is the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are exclusive theories. Where did that single-celled organism come from. Is evolution then a creationist theory to start with then? I think the "natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms" equation falls in the same realm as abiogenesis, both have to be proven empirically and repeated

Actually, it has. Hardy-Weinberg!

c) genome comparisons, which is not exactly a science because junk DNA cant predict the complexity of the organism...

What's your point? Genome comparisons do work. Scientists use RFLP's and many other markers to help compare genomes.

Genetics IS a science.

radiometric dating-assumptions that decay is constant

Which it is

[fantazum]

Interesting, i didn't know this, any peer-reviewed article you can refer me to. I don't think any creationist will argue that natural selection doesn't exist, just that all the animals were created with the ability to adapt. Natural selection is "adapt or die". I have not seen any empirical reproducible data/evidence pointing to the theory that all living matter evolved from a single cell organism, just circumstantial evidence like:

a) radiometric dating-assumptions that decay is constant etc

geology

c) genome comparisons, which is not exactly a science because junk DNA cant predict the complexity of the organism...

d) and the assumption that natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms. This has not been empirically proven and reproduced.

Another thing i cannot get is the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are exclusive theories. Where did that single-celled organism come from. Is evolution then a creationist theory to start with then? I think the "natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms" equation falls in the same realm as abiogenesis, both have to be proven empirically and repeated. The first does have an extreme amount of circumstantial evidence pointing toward it though, but thats it... a lot of circumstantial evidence, nothing more. OJ Simpson anyone

I don't know which theory to believe, creationists have so many different crackpot theories and seem only to look for holes in evolution theory.

I think most creationism theories and natural selection are not at odds to answer your question.

BIG CHANCE TO WIN $250,000 AND PROVE THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that..

A highly ordered universe exists.

At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.

Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..

The universe was created by God.

The universe always existed.

The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.

Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)

Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).

Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.

Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

How to collect the $250,000:

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.

My suggestion:

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.

*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:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

Planets and stars formed from space dust.

Matter created life by itself.

Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

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).

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer

Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.

Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.

Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.

Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.

Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.

This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.

The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.

The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.

Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.

The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.

Anonymous letters will be ignored.

Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.

Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.

Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.

Sincerely,

Kent Hovind

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

[SilverCougar]

AH! MOTHER @!$%%@ NOT AGAIN!!

*convulses* Not another bloody EvC thread.. no no.. *cries* make the pain go away...

[aquatus1]

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.

Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)

Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).

Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.

Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

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:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

Planets and stars formed from space dust.

Matter created life by itself.

Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

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).

Where the HECK did this guy go to school?

[frogfish]

Aquatus: He didn't go to school...

Crossopterygii (Devonian fishies)

EVOLVED TO

Tiktaalik roseae (Fishapod)

EVOLVED TO

Tetrapods

So when can I collect my $250,000?

Edited February 4, 2007 by frogfish

[brave_new_world]

" the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God." ---Charles Darwin

I think evolutionism and religion complement each other. There can still be a creator and evolution. In my opinion The creator creates the malleable physical substance that is subject to evolution.

Also the way some scientists follow evolution is with what you could call a religious fervor and so evolutionism is religious in my books.

I just wish scientists would hurry up and find out how matter creates consciousness. This is the only scientific question worth asking in my view.

Edited February 4, 2007 by brave_new_world

[brave_new_world]

BIG CHANCE TO WIN $250,000 AND PROVE THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that..

A highly ordered universe exists.

At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.

Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..

The universe was created by God.

The universe always existed.

The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.

Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)

Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).

Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.

Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

How to collect the $250,000:

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.

My suggestion:

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.

*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:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

Planets and stars formed from space dust.

Matter created life by itself.

Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

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).

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer

Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.

Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.

Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.

Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.

Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.

This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.

The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.

The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.

Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.

The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.

Anonymous letters will be ignored.

Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.

Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.

Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.

Sincerely,

Kent Hovind

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

Dude look up Ramana Maharshi. He knew God better than anyone I know. Why is it that science versus religion has to be science versus western religion?? Western mysticism is never taken into account and also hinduism or buddhism is never taken into account. According to hinduism and buddhism evolution can be true in a God made universe. Because everything is one in buddhism and the same goes with hinduism. In hinduism everything is a reflection of Brahman.

Edited February 4, 2007 by brave_new_world

[brave_new_world]

Aquatus: He didn't go to school...

Crossopterygii (Devonian fishies)

EVOLVED TO

Tiktaalik roseae (Fishapod)

EVOLVED TO

Tetrapods

So when can I collect my $250,000?

That isn't proof man. May be evidence but not proof.

[aquatus1]

That isn't proof man. May be evidence but not proof.

Actually, it would be considered proof. It validates a pre-existing theory. Evidence is the stuff that makes up the theory. Proof is what confirms it. The fossil record isn't the basis for evolutionary theory. It is the confirmation of it.

[frogfish]

Yup, and that's why I deserve the 250 grand!

[Raptor]

(Long crap removed)

Sincerely,

Kent Hovind

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

Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American evangelist and prominent Young Earth creationist who is serving a ten year term in U.S. federal prison for tax fraud. The self-styled "Dr. Dino" (whose Ph.D, from an unaccredited university, is in Christian education)

That explains it.

[Siara]

It seems to me that anyone who believes in genetics also has to believe in evolution. If you don't believe in genetics-- what part don't you believe in? Chromosomes? The capacity for genes to mutate? The idea that advantageous mutations might lead to a longer life? The idea that longer life results in more offspring?

Chromosomes-- if you aren't adopted, look at your parents. You look like them, right? Do you believe that crops and domestic animals can be bred for certain traits?

Mutations-- If you don't believe in mutation, you don't believe in many kinds of cancer. You don't believe in albinos. You don't believe that viruses can change. You don't believe that radiation causes birth defects.

Survival of the fittest-- not believing this implies that lifespan bears no relation to the physical experience of living. Looking both ways before you cross the street does not reduce your chances of getting hit by a car.

Long life=more offspring -- In nature, animals tend to die before they reach old age and become infertile. A wolf who is killed at the age of three does not produce puppies when she's four or five. If she had a giant litter at the age of two, it's possible she's generated more puppies than many three-year-olds. But, eventually the law of averages evens things out and the long lived animals produce more offspring.

-----------------------------------

So someone here who doesn't believe in evolution tell me which part of evolution don't you believe in? If you believe in all of the above, then you believe that evolution is possible.

Not believing in evolution is, in this day and age, a weird intellectual affectation. Since evolution can easily be seen as an intelligent design, believing in a diety should not affect your belief in evolution.

[speshall mareens]

Where the HECK did this guy go to school?

he doesn't have to, he probably went ot a site. DNA links seemingly unrelated animals to each other. like the hippo and whale. the erason its all western religion is because it states that evolution is false. thats why. i used the term of natural selection becouse evolution has a few meanings. you ask for proof of evolution, when you can't prove god? you have LESS evidence of god than we do evolution. face it. GOD ISN'T REAL! i ask you, prove to me god is real. show me evidence that prove's it. mammalian carnivore evolution picture its the best i could do, i have see better but its in a book

[fantazum]

he doesn't have to, he probably went ot a site. DNA links seemingly unrelated animals to each other. like the hippo and whale. the erason its all western religion is because it states that evolution is false. thats why. i used the term of natural selection becouse evolution has a few meanings. you ask for proof of evolution, when you can't prove god? you have LESS evidence of god than we do evolution. face it. GOD ISN'T REAL! i ask you, prove to me god is real. show me evidence that prove's it. mammalian carnivore evolution picture its the best i could do, i have see better but its in a book

ah yes but....the faithful may have never seen god,but has the evolutionist ever seen creation?

[aquatus1]

ah yes but....the faithful may have never seen god,but has the evolutionist ever seen creation?

Why would an evolutionist expect to see creation?

[speshall mareens]

by creation do you mean religion? cuz that makes no sense. if you mean seeing evolution, that takes millions of years unless you at lake tanganiqa (or however you spell it) where evolution takes years, and can easily be observed. i fact, that lake is proof of evolution. wheres my 250 grand? hmmm?

[frogfish]

I deserve it first, SM!

Whya ren't you replying to my post, fantazum?

Edited February 6, 2007 by frogfish

[speshall mareens]

he doesn't wanna come back cause he knows hes wrong. i say he gives us BOTH the money and every one else who knows he's w rong a thousand.

[fantazum]

I deserve it first, SM!

Whya ren't you replying to my post, fantazum?

because you posted a response to an article I posted into the forum. I was not offering an opinion but if you insist on a response then I can only respond by saying thank you. And I thank all evolutionary scientists who have struggled so hard over the years to prove the evolution of all animals and plants and of course by doing so provide irrefutable proof of intelligent design.

You see its quite simple; thanks to the theory of evolution and the volumes of research committed to it we now know conclusively that all living organisms share a common ancestry - we all came from one single- celled organism.

Now, to keep the response simple; that single celled organism was created by different elements combining together and then suddenly producing a living organism. But all those elements exist today and yet no new life has been created by them and despite the best efforts of the world's finest scientists the phenomen cannot be recreated in the laboratory. yes, we have all the ingredients available to create life but somehow cannot seem to do it . Why? -simple, because the one element missing is of a supernatural nature.

That original single celled organism should never have evolved because it didnt need to. Evolution teaches us that no living organism will evolve if doesnt need to.

All its requirements to continue to live happily existed in abundance yet it chose to suddenly evolve. Why? Why didnt it simply remain a single celled organism and spread across the face of the Earth? We know that the Earth is perhaps at least 4.5 billion years old and for 3.5 billion of those years there was water and an environment capable of supporting life.

So, our single celled organism suddenly decided to evolve. In just a few million years an explosion of speciation took place for no apparent reason. to evolve into different forms that then followed their own evolutionary paths. And all this happened even though it didnt need to, almost as though that single original organism had been pre-programmed. Programmed with one single piece of software; to evolve and evolve, to split into a myriad different forms until finally one organism arrived that usurped all others: man.

Yes, we are the end result of the evolutionary process. In just a few thousand years (not even a millisecond on the evolutionary scale) man stood upright and was suddenly endowed with something no other living organism on this planet was allowed to develop. Something that nothing in nature could reproduce, something that was not repeated anywhere in nature. Something that only the supernatural can explain, yes, the ability to think!

Thanks to the science of evolution we know absolutely that there is nothing in evolution that could possibly explain why only the human being can reason beyond the natural, why he can question his own existance, why he can learn so quickly that he could leave his cave and step onto the flight deck of the space shuttle within such an astonishingly short period of time.

And why can no scientist explain this unique feature of the human being? because it has no natural explanation; because dreams cannot be weighed, because imagination can not be measured.

We are what God designed for the Earth and our ultimate destiny is to go out into the eternal darkness and in his image, bring light to it.

[Mattshark]

because you posted a response to an article I posted into the forum. I was not offering an opinion but if you insist on a response then I can only respond by saying thank you. And I thank all evolutionary scientists who have struggled so hard over the years to prove the evolution of all animals and plants and of course by doing so provide irrefutable proof of intelligent design.

There is absolutly no eveidence what so ever for intelligent design, however there is a mass of evidence for evolution, you clearly do not know the subject well enough if you believe this as supporting evidence for evolution is well documented, it will not be proven with out constant and complete recording of organisms over a few thousands years, but that does not discount the strong physical and molecular evidence.

You see its quite simple; thanks to the theory of evolution and the volumes of research committed to it we now know conclusively that all living organisms share a common ancestry - we all came from one single- celled organism.

Now, to keep the response simple; that single celled organism was created by different elements combining together and then suddenly producing a living organism. But all those elements exist today and yet no new life has been created by them and despite the best efforts of the world's finest scientists the phenomen cannot be recreated in the laboratory. yes, we have all the ingredients available to create life but somehow cannot seem to do it . Why? -simple, because the one element missing is of a supernatural nature.

There is no evidence of supernatural force in the world or anywhere, you are assuming, that is not evidence that is just you making something up with no evidence to back you up. Also not all the worlds greatest scientisits have been trying to recreate life in a lab, the field of synthetic biology is not a huge one and a relitively new one.

That original single celled organism should never have evolved because it didnt need to. Evolution teaches us that no living organism will evolve if doesnt need to.

All its requirements to continue to live happily existed in abundance yet it chose to suddenly evolve. Why? Why didnt it simply remain a single celled organism and spread across the face of the Earth? We know that the Earth is perhaps at least 4.5 billion years old and for 3.5 billion of those years there was water and an environment capable of supporting life.

So you do not understand competition then?

So, our single celled organism suddenly decided to evolve. In just a few million years an explosion of speciation took place for no apparent reason. to evolve into different forms that then followed their own evolutionary paths. And all this happened even though it didnt need to, almost as though that single original organism had been pre-programmed. Programmed with one single piece of software; to evolve and evolve, to split into a myriad different forms until finally one organism arrived that usurped all others: man.

Yes, we are the end result of the evolutionary process. In just a few thousand years (not even a millisecond on the evolutionary scale) man stood upright and was suddenly endowed with something no other living organism on this planet was allowed to develop. Something that nothing in nature could reproduce, something that was not repeated anywhere in nature. Something that only the supernatural can explain, yes, the ability to think!

Sorry you have got supernatural out of nowhere with no evidence what so ever. Do you have any proof of humans being the end result of evolution? We have excellent communication skills, but so do orcas, they have names and culture and lets face it they could probably out smart most humans as most people are in fact not very intelligent. The ability to think is not unique to humans either, many animals can think, sorry your knowledge of biology is limited, you should look into the field better before making wild unsubstantiated claims.

Thanks to the science of evolution we know absolutely that there is nothing in evolution that could possibly explain why only the human being can reason beyond the natural, why he can question his own existance, why he can learn so quickly that he could leave his cave and step onto the flight deck of the space shuttle within such an astonishingly short period of time.

And why can no scientist explain this unique feature of the human being? because it has no natural explanation; because dreams cannot be weighed, because imagination can not be measured.

We are what God designed for the Earth and our ultimate destiny is to go out into the eternal darkness and in his image, bring light to it.

You are completely wrong with you assumptions there, there is plenty of evidence for the evolution of humans from ancestors. There is nothing completely unique about humans sorry, we have some better abilities than some other animals, we are worse in many aspects in of sensorary abilities than many animals and as I said before the majority of people are not highly intelligent and are no more intelligent (in some cases less so) than some animals, we are not the only tool users, we just have used them better, that is all.

You need some lessons in biology if you wish to make a more accurate arguement.

[Cetacea]

That original single celled organism should never have evolved because it didnt need to. Evolution teaches us that no living organism will evolve if doesnt need to.

All its requirements to continue to live happily existed in abundance yet it chose to suddenly evolve. Why? Why didnt it simply remain a single celled organism and spread across the face of the Earth? We know that the Earth is perhaps at least 4.5 billion years old and for 3.5 billion of those years there was water and an environment capable of supporting life.

So, our single celled organism suddenly decided to evolve. In just a few million years an explosion of speciation took place for no apparent reason. to evolve into different forms that then followed their own evolutionary paths.

First of all, organisms do not choose to evolve. It happens.I can't just decide it might be useful to grow a pair of wings and thus decide to grow them. It does not work that way.

Organisms though being of the same species are not all the same, they have different genetic material which may result in some being more fit than others, however an animal that is not fit in one environment may surpass others in another, it occupies a different ecological niche. now most single celled organisms reproduce asexually which is very fast and so evolution of certain traits in bacteria is very rapid, hence a single celled organism could quickly evolve into two or more morphs with very different pheno and genotypes, eventually giving rise to different species. in an environment where there are few species, occupying a new niche would be an efficient way to escape competition- if you have the ability to occupy a new niche that is.

And all this happened even though it didnt need to, almost as though that single original organism had been pre-programmed. Programmed with one single piece of software; to evolve and evolve, to split into a myriad different forms until finally one organism arrived that usurped all others: man.

Man does not surpass all others, we are just adapted to a particular environment just as deep sea fish are adapted to theirs. In fact, it is because we were rubbish at pretty much everything else that we had to evolve to be 'clever' so that we would not be eaten by superior animals. you cannot measure all animals on the same scale, it does not work. While a manatee may not be able to come up with the theory of relativity, it has a long distance sense of touch, something not present in people at all, so in that sense the manatee does indeed surpass us.Of course we would like to think we are the pinnacle of evolution but if we are so great why are we, apart from parasites, the only species that actively destroys the resources and environment we depend on?

Yes, we are the end result of the evolutionary process.

In just a few thousand years (not even a millisecond on the evolutionary scale) man stood upright and was suddenly endowed with something no other living organism on this planet was allowed to develop. Something that nothing in nature could reproduce, something that was not repeated anywhere in nature. Something that only the supernatural can explain, yes, the ability to think!

There is no end product of evolution, it's continuous, if the environment changes different traits will evolve and species will go extinct. wer are far from perfect, upward gait is still causing a lot of back problems for example

Are you saying only humans possess the ability to think? Because then you have some serious reading to do. How do you explain learning? All vertebrates and even some invertebrates are capeable to some extent of more or less abstract thought. Chimps deceive and 'lie' to each other, they go to war, this all requires forward planning. Dolphins have names, they use signature whistles to refer to each other rather than identifying each other just by the tone of the whistling, social animals cooperate during hunting. Orcas 'speak' in dialects. These are all things that cannot be explained away by reflexes and instinct. Take the orca example, if you were to say this was genetic, ie, because pod members only breed with other pod members, only certain genes controlling a certain vocabulary are being expressed. This is all very well but it has a major flaw. Pod members do not breed with each other at all. the dialect is purely learned and in captive situation, they are able to learn other animals dialects and communicate with them in their own dialect. orcas are actually recognised as having culture.

Thanks to the science of evolution we know absolutely that there is nothing in evolution that could possibly explain why only the human being can reason beyond the natural, why he can question his own existance, why he can learn so quickly that he could leave his cave and step onto the flight deck of the space shuttle within such an astonishingly short period of time.

And why can no scientist explain this unique feature of the human being? because it has no natural explanation; because dreams cannot be weighed, because imagination can not be measured.

We are what God designed for the Earth and our ultimate destiny is to go out into the eternal darkness and in his image, bring light to it.

Have you ever watched a sleeping dog or cat? Why do they bark/meow/ move in their sleep and occasionally wake up with a start? We are not unique. Animals dream, think and use tools, maybe not to the extent that humans do but this is because they did not have the need to do so in order to survive as they are far superior to us in other areas. We are just another animal that has adapted to it's environment, the only thing that is unique about us is the obsession we have with ourselves and the extent to which we are destroying what we need to live, even parasites do not usually kill their host, something humans are coming closer ad closer to doing. If we are indeed designed by some supernatural being, it did not do a very good job.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Cetacea

[frogfish]

Organisms evolved because of random mutations and other changes to DNA, AND because it gives them the "upper hand". There's nothing supernatural.

to split into a myriad different forms until finally one organism arrived that usurped all others: man.

Do you think man is adpet to the sea like fishes, or to the sky like birds?

No, we're are not the ultimate being.

[speshall mareens]

what he means by super natural is that he says theres is no explanation of HOW this material for all life on earth to e formed. well in case you have been living under a rock for forty years or are just plain stupid (or to intent on proving your point you've left out the part that disposes what you said) you've obviously left out....(drumroll please) THE BIG BANG. yes we Have been able to replicate the big bang using particle accelerator.

and what do you mean the ability to think? anything can think! we don't know that other animals can't think and dream and have imagination! you simply follow what your told without question. you follow blindly with know thought; therebye, it is YOU who does not think, it is YOU who has no imagination. your but a pawn in the churches game. or atleast thats how i see it. and guess what? your not the only one who can write fancie-like. ttttppppbbbbtttt! that was weird . ants are also very smart. they have orginized colonues and even farm dolphins and monkeys and birds all use tools. does that not take thought? yes. given time and the right oppertunities these animals could evolve into "intelligent lifeforms". we have gotten far because we re intelligent, can laugh, can greive, can dream, can imagine, but what sets us apart is the fact that we have languages. we have gotten so far because we can express these thoughts and communicate them. THATS why we are the superior being.