Show all 13 posts from this thread on one page
|
Show all 13 posts from this thread on one page |
Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Spiritual Life (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=34)
-- $250,000 if you can provide proof of 'evolution'. (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=11672)
$250,000 if you can provide proof of 'evolution'.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
__________________
"Truth transcends fact."
"Truth is not determined by how many people believe it."
"All the darkness in the world can not extinguish the light of a single candle."
the objective of this is just dumb. It's to prove that evolution is a theology/religion simply because we can't find proof of a definitive missing link. That's what it's going to say, it's dumb. Ok...wow, we haven't found it if there is one, that doesn't make it that similar to religion. That's like saying..."well, we haven't found a fossil without a definite parent...therefore...religion must be based solely on faith." Evolution is not a religion, if it was it'd be a "following" with methods of following the particular belief when it's nothing more than a descriptor. Any trace of faith doesn't mean somethings a reliigon, it means it's a belief. With this rationality, life/existence would be a religion, among many other terrible holes this brings about.
__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.
"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell
If someone doesn't want to believe in either, they won't.
__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left
I think it's impossible to find the concrete proof that is needed to win the $250,000. Even if someone found what they believed to be evidence of evolution, Dr. Hovind might not think of it as evidence and the person would not receive the money.
__________________
"A man of many companions may come to ruin,
but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."
[ Proverbs 18:24 ]
proabably for people who think theyre smart..and are juss dumb
quote:it may be an error in dr hovind's part to protray evolution as religion (from how you define it to be anyway, not taking into account the ambiguity of language so to save unnecessary debate), but thats not his original purpose. it would be unwise to call anything 'dumb' just because of a missused word, in this postmodern/structurld world, such things happen quite frequently. above all people i thought you would have realized that.
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
the objective of this is just dumb. It's to prove that evolution is a theology/religion simply because we can't find proof of a definitive missing link. That's what it's going to say, it's dumb. Ok...wow, we haven't found it if there is one, that doesn't make it that similar to religion. That's like saying..."well, we haven't found a fossil without a definite parent...therefore...religion must be based solely on faith." Evolution is not a religion, if it was it'd be a "following" with methods of following the particular belief when it's nothing more than a descriptor. Any trace of faith doesn't mean somethings a reliigon, it means it's a belief. With this rationality, life/existence would be a religion, among many other terrible holes this brings about.
quote:if youre suggesting that there are concrete and actual evidence to evolution, as your tone protray so, please tell us. we creationists are as rational and intellegent as you are. like i said, its not because of some mental inferiority of unabling to grasps scientific truths that we question evolution. so that you know, we believe in sciences as much as you do.
Originally posted by requiem
If someone doesn't want to believe in either, they won't.
quote:its a panel of educated men, not dr. hovind himself. dr. hovind is a well acclaimed creationist, so he does have such resources to hire these men. but yes, i suppose it is subjective, he may as well only hire fellow creationists in his panel of judges. but as the contrast of light to dark, any concrete evidence should be able to be recognized. please read my previous reply if you think otherwise.
Originally posted by yOOnsk
I think it's impossible to find the concrete proof that is needed to win the $250,000. Even if someone found what they believed to be evidence of evolution, Dr. Hovind might not think of it as evidence and the person would not receive the money.
quote:yes, im quite lost who to beleive. you, in one hand, who probably is still in highschool, or people, in the other, who have dedicated their entire lives to educate themselves to a cause. yes, please do help me out here (and by that i mean the validity of your statement).
Originally posted by castle outsider
proabably for people who think theyre smart..and are juss dumb
quote:
Originally posted by jusunlee
above all people i thought you would have realized that.
__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.
"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell
just so you guys know, my personal stance regarding dr hovinds challange is of indifference. though i think its fine and noble for him to rally people to question the presence of evolution in textbooks, he is failing to see that many other things are being taught in public schools that does not have concrete evidence as well. take most of advance physics for example, much of it is theoretical, but he fails to question their presence in textbooks whatsoever. (they are afterall just theories, so why only evolution?) and im sure there are many other theories that do not just quite cut it into textbooks, i dont know, i think the textbooks purpose is to present what is most scientifically logical (by scientific i mean non-supernatural), and because something about the dawn of time has to be taught to kids, evolution is the prefered theory.
I believe it is folly for you to be speaking for all creationists ("we creationists..." etc.) You may believe in the sciences as much as an evolutionist, but there are so many, and I mean a lot, of creationists who don't.
By the way, what theory(ies) in physics do you refer to? If you're speaking about the quantum level, he's probably not questioning it because there is no other alternative. Evolution has a very popular alternative.
And also, if we're playing the concrete evidence game, it is so easy to say that there is no absolute concrete evidence for evolution. But is there any for creationism? Circumstantial evidence aside, we're practically nowhere in this debate. But if circumstantial evidence is to be counted, evolution would probably take the lead.
I wonder if the dead horse is hurting from the beating we keep giving it.
__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left
quote:maybe so, but it would be folly to assume so many dont for the same reason, because there are so many, and i mean a lot, of creationists who do.
Originally posted by requiem
I believe it is folly for you to be speaking for all creationists ("we creationists..." etc.) You may believe in the sciences as much as an evolutionist, but there are so many, and I mean a lot, of creationists who don't.
quote:no no, dr hovinds main argument for questioning the presence of evolution in textbooks is because there arent any circumstantial evidence for it, not because there is such a popular alternative.
Originally posted by requiem
By the way, what theory(ies) in physics do you refer to? If you're speaking about the quantum level, he's probably not questioning it because there is no other alternative. Evolution has a very popular alternative.
quote:which is the reason why evolution is found in textbooks, something i dont question.
Originally posted by requiem
And also, if we're playing the concrete evidence game, it is so easy to say that there is no absolute concrete evidence for evolution. But is there any for creationism? Circumstantial evidence aside, we're practically nowhere in this debate. But if circumstantial evidence is to be counted, evolution would probably take the lead.
I wonder if the dead horse is hurting from the beating we keep giving it.
quote:
Originally posted by jusunlee
no no, dr hovinds main argument for questioning the presence of evolution in textbooks is because there arent any circumstantial evidence for it, not because there is such a popular alternative.
__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left
quote:empirical yes, i was too focused on wanting to quote you that i wasnt thinking.
Originally posted by requiem
He's not questioning the existence of circumstantial evidence. He's questioning the existence of empirical evidence. He wants it and, assumedly, he'll pay dearly for it.
quote:never said shaky, but if by that you mean the lack of concrete evidence, superstring theory, antimatter, and hawkings works are examples that are purely theoretical yet still taught in textbooks.
Originally posted by requiem
Oh and would you mind answering my question regarding theories of physics that are shaky on evidence?
quote:
Originally posted by jusunlee
empirical yes, i was too focused on wanting to quote you that i wasnt thinking.
never said shaky, but if by that you mean the lack of concrete evidence, superstring theory, antimatter, and hawkings works are examples that are purely theoretical yet still taught in textbooks.
funny you press on, i thought you would know. but ofcourse, it may be just me, haha.
__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:23 AM. | Show all 13 posts from this thread on one page |