will anyone accept this challenge?
Jabriol
“Evolutionism is a religious worldview 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 a
clear violation of the First Amendment.”
“I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” —Genesis 1:1
“…thy word is truth.” —John 17:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Dr. Hovind
Do you know the scientific facts supporting Biblical Creationism? Do you
know the facilities in the theory of evolution?
Dr. Kent Hovind is one of the foremost authorities on "Science and the
Bible." He has debated evolutionist at many universities across America and
is dedicated to the proclamation of factual, scientific evidence supporting
the biblical record of creation and the history of the world. His
"fact-filled" creation seminars are exciting and informative, causing even
the most devout evolutionist to "sit up and take notice!"
Christians will be encouraged in their faith and non-believers will be
seriously challenged to reconsider their beliefs!
Dr. Kent Hovind is from Pensacola Florida, but originally from Illinois. He
was a high school science teacher for 15 years. He travels around the
country speaking on creation, evolution, and dinosaurs over 700 times a
year.
The following information has been transcribed from several public messages
given by Dr. Hovind on the subject of Creationism versus Evolutionism. It is
being offered to encourage and strengthen the faith of believers and to
convince the unbelievers there is a God who loves them and wants a personal
relationship.
As you read this, it is important to remember, Dr. Hovind has three goals:
To strengthen your faith in the word of God. He believes the Bible is the
infallible, inspired word of the living God.
If you are not saved, He wants to get you converted. He will tell you right
up front, "I'm after you, so don't be surprised."
If you are saved, and you are not doing much for the Lord, he wants to make
you uncomfortable. There is war going on, we all need to get busy. God has a
ministry for everyone.
Read our most current "Every Once in a While Newsletter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to contact Dr. Hovind
Dr. Kent Hovind
c/o 29 Cummings Road
Pensacola, Fl. 32503
(850) 479-DINO (3466)
(850) 479-8562 Fax
Henry Barwood
Jabriol wrote:
Nonsense like:
> “Evolutionism is a religious worldview 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 a
> clear violation of the First Amendment.”
And, of course, having "God" on the coin of the realm, in a pledge of
"alliegence", countless religious icons in courtrooms and prayer all
over the place is not? There is no such thing as "evolutionism", no
church, no doctrine, no tithing, no nothing. Popular religion, OTOH,
gets a significant "free ride" in the tax system. Hummmm... Perhaps we
should declare evolutionary theory, indeed all of science, a religion
and apply for tax-exempt status. Lets hear it for the Church of the
Big-Bang!
> “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
> evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
Yeah right. Hovind would not accept as proof anything less than the
instaneous change of a gnat into a hippopotamus, and then his answer
would be "look, a miracle occurred, praise God".
> “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” —Genesis 1:1
> “…thy word is truth.” —John 17:17
And your proof for this unwarranted assertion is?
Commercial for Kent Hovind's church snipped.
Barwood
wf...@enter.netxx
On 14 Mar 1998 20:50:38 -0500, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>“Evolutionism is a religious worldview not supported by science,
except that it is supported by scientists worldwide REGARDLESS of
religious beliefs. how is it possible for xtians, jews and moslem
scientists to have the same religion?
what a bizarre idea!!
creationism, of course IS a religious idea. check the ICR homepage
where it specifically says ONLY xtians can be creationists..and
therefore scientists
guess that leaves out einstein.
Scripture,
>popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous,
>mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc. is a
>clear violation of the First Amendment.”
gee thats not what the supreme court said in 'edwards vs aguillard' in
1987 (the decision is available on the net). creationism is religion
you have offered NO proof beyond your own assertion that evolution is
religion.
>
>
>To strengthen your faith in the word of God. He believes the Bible is the
>infallible, inspired word of the living God.
gee how many scientists worldwide need to involve the bible in quantum
mechanics? why is it ONLY evolution that is unbiblical even though the
world's scientists accept it as fact?
tell us jabriol
roy.altholz
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>...
> “Evolutionism is a religious worldview 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 a
> clear violation of the First Amendment.”
BS. Hovind is a quack. Hey Jabber's, I thought you said JW's didn't
believe in the "6 Day Quicky". If that's true, why are you shilling for a
goof like Hovind?
Oh yah, T.O has a splendid slam dunk on Hovinds claims. (Funny. Hovind
claims that evolution (actually all sciences) is a religion, then tries to
scientifically prove creationism. Read the Matson vs Hovind article, here
at : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html
>
> “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
> evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
>
The terms of the challenge are unrealistic.
>
> “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” —Genesis 1:1
> “…thy word is truth.” —John 17:17
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To strengthen your faith in the word of God. He believes the Bible is the
> infallible, inspired word of the living God.
> If you are not saved, He wants to get you converted. He will tell you
right
> up front, "I'm after you, so don't be surprised."
> If you are saved, and you are not doing much for the Lord, he wants to
make
> you uncomfortable. There is war going on, we all need to get busy. God
has a
> ministry for everyone.
>
> Read our most current "Every Once in a While Newsletter
I'd find more enlightnment cleaning the litter box.
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> How to contact Dr. Hovind
>
> Dr. Kent Hovind
> c/o 29 Cummings Road
> Pensacola, Fl. 32503
> (850) 479-DINO (3466)
> (850) 479-8562 Fax
>
>
Hovind is a crank. I've seen some of his video's and he's so far off base,
that I don't even think *he* believes half of the garbage he pukes forth.
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
roy.altholz
Jabriol, have *YOU* read any of Hovinds materials, viewed andy of his
video, or listened to any of his tapes?
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>...
[snipped Hovind bit]
BTW, The only reason "evolutionists" sit up and take notice of Hovinds
claims is because they are about the same as someone pointing at your '94
chevy, and saying, "I had a 69 'Dodge just like yours."
Loo-zah-er!
Tim DeLaney
Jabriol wrote:
>
> Evolutionism is a religious worldview not supported by science, Scripture,
My dictionary doesn't recognize "evolutionism" as a word. (Obviously,
you have not repeated it enough.) If it ever becomes a word, it will not
be defined as a religion. This is utterly preposterous.
> popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous,
> mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc. is a
> clear violation of the First Amendment.
This statement is false on its face. "Creation science" has lost every
court decision of any consequence since Scopes. Perhaps you would like
to *argue* that it *should* be a violation of the First Amendment, but
you haven't, and it's not.
>
> I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
> evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. Dr. Kent Hovind
And as of today, I am offering $20,000 to anybody who can prove to me
the literal truth of Genesis.
My offer is twice as meaningful as Hovind's (And 2 x 0 = 0).
<Snip remaining blather>
--
Tim DeLaney
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking
about, and express it in numbers, you know something about
it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind ...
--- Lord Kelvin
Emmanuelle Foster
roy.altholz wrote:
> Jabriol, have *YOU* read any of Hovinds materials, viewed andy of his
> video, or listened to any of his tapes?
A book based on his seminars (Unmasking The False Religion of Evolution) is
online at:
http://www.hsv.tis.net/~ke4vol/evolve/cover.html
I had a look at the chapter about the 2d law of thermodynamics. Here is how
it begins:
"Let's learn some more science here. The second law of thermodynamics says:
everything tends
toward disorder. In other words, if you leave something alone for a while, it
will rot or rust..."
^^^
Pretty bad example of increase of entropy...
Emmanuelle
efo...@lib.drury.edu
In article <01bd4fcd$32a7f540$0c3a37a6@roy>,
Emmanuelle
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Mark Isaak
In article <6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>“Evolutionism is a religious worldview not supported by science, Scripture,
>mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc. is a
>
>“I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
>evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
A man who tells blatant lies about what evolution is cannot be trusted to
keep an agreement.
I have an insect collection which gives empirical evidence for common
descent. Hovind is welcome to look at it whenever he wants.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"That which you know, you ignore because it is inconvenient. That
which you do not know, you invent." - J. Michael Straczynski
anthonios
Tim DeLaney wrote:
> "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking
> about, and express it in numbers, you know something about
> it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
> is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind ...
> --- Lord Kelvin
And this applies wonderfully to natural selection.
--
am
Jacques Guy
Jabriol wrote:
> “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
> evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
Reminds of those pyramid scams, you know "Dear Friend, just 6 months
ago I was ruined, blah, blah, blah, then I made $50,000..."
It's been $50,000 for donkey's years, it even was $50,000 when Mad
Magazine cost 25 cents. A standing offer of $10,000 of today's
green folding stuff? What a cheapskate! Look, that's 40,000 copies
of Mad Magazine at 25 cents each. Go and have a look at how much
it costs NOW, and multiply that by 40,000. THEN, and only THEN,
I might consider.
Jabriol
> BS. Hovind is a quack. Hey Jabber's, I thought you said JW's didn't
> believe in the "6 Day Quicky". If that's true, why are you shilling for
a
> goof like Hovind?
I just thought was intensly funny.. I also in anycase, I was waiting for one
of you guys to tale home the bucks..and sharte it with me ;)
roy.altholz
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<6ehvn7$o...@examiner.concentric.net>...
Humor. There may be hope for you after all. :}
Tim DeLaney
Absolutely. Even Ed Conrad 'offered' $50,000.
Sort of.
--
Tim DeLaney
colin...@geocities.com
In article <350C1AB1...@ip.pt>,
ip20...@ip.pt wrote:
>
> Tim DeLaney wrote:
>
> > "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking
> > about, and express it in numbers, you know something about
> > it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
> > is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind ...
> > --- Lord Kelvin
>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Raven
In article <6ehvn7$o...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
>
> > BS. Hovind is a quack. Hey Jabber's, I thought you said JW's didn't
> > believe in the "6 Day Quicky". If that's true, why are you shilling for
> a
> > goof like Hovind?
>
> I just thought was intensly funny.. I also in anycase, I was waiting for one
>
> of you guys to tale home the bucks..and sharte it with me ;)
Never happen. Hovind is the judge of whether the requirements have been
met and he can easily change those requirements at will regardless of
what evidence is shown.
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com
OR
cem...@sprintmail.com
quir...@aztec.asu.edu
In article <6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>,snip
> “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
> evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
> Dr. Kent Hovind
snup
I offer every fossil in every museum in the world. After you have viewed them
all let me know where to collect the money. If you don't take my evidence
seriously and examine it you can send the check now. My address is on my web
page.
James Q. Jacobs
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/4844/
we
Jabriol wrote:
>
> “Evolutionism is a religious worldview 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 a
> clear violation of the First Amendment.”
>
> evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> How to contact Dr. Hovind
>
> Dr. Kent Hovind
> c/o 29 Cummings Road
> Pensacola, Fl. 32503
> (850) 479-DINO (3466)
> (850) 479-8562 Fax
DINOSAUR FOSSILS and MITOCHONDRIAL DNA are all the proof I need...
Ron Tolle
Jabriol wrote:
“Evolutionism is a religious worldview not supported by science, Scripture,Jabriol wrote:
popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous,
mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc. is a
clear violation of the First Amendment.”“I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
“Evolutionism is a religious worldview 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 a clear violation of the First Amendment.”
“I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
Has anyone asked why it is that creationists are so opposed to the teaching
of evolution
in public schools? They don't seem to like to talk about it too much.
To hear them tell it,
they're just concerned about the integrity of science education and
they seem to feel
that evolutionary theory isn't legitimate science.
The real reason, as most people know despite their silence on
the subject, is that evolution casts doubt on the "Fall of Man" as depicted
in Genesis. This cannot be allowed, because it
is the Fall that puts all mankind in a sinful state in the first place
and without it there's no
need for a Savior. Rather than simply accept that some things in scripture
must be taken
figuratively, they would rather re-write the known facts about evolution
so that it fits
fundamentalist dogma.
I'm new to these groups, but couldn't resist this one. The reason Hovind
makes this challenge is because he's rigged it so that he can't lose.
I myself entered
into a brief e-mail exchange with him, and challenged him to (1) correct
his definition of evolution so that it accurately depicts what scientists
mean when referring
to the term, (2) enter into a legally binding contract, so that if
he tries to
worm his way out of shelling out the $10K he could be sued, (3) throw
out his challenge
during a press conference, during which he specifically challenges
acknowledged
authorities on evolution, not some shmuck biology teacher from a junior
college somewhere, and (4) and televise the entire debate, so that when
he gets the living shit beat out of him the whole world can tape it.
When I pressed the point, Hovind stopped answering my posts.
Moral of this post: Hovind cares much more about furthering his personal
spin on the Bible
than the truth. I guess that to him and his followers, saving souls
is so important that
it justifies raising a generation of cretins.
Ron Tolle
rjt...@express-news.net
Ralf Guminski
Henry Barwood <hbar...@pyrite.igs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
<350B3A7E...@pyrite.igs.indiana.edu>...
> Jabriol wrote:
> > “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any
empirical
> > evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
>
> Yeah right. Hovind would not accept as proof anything less than the
> instaneous change of a gnat into a hippopotamus, and then his answer
> would be "look, a miracle occurred, praise God".
The thing is really very simple.
It is a fundamental principle that a theory can not ever be "proved", it
can only be "disproved".
This is a perfectly understood principle and is nothing new.
His $10k will forever be safe because what he is asking us for is not only
impossible, but it is also unreasonable to ask for in the first place.
Evolution is an observable fact. The only question that arises is how to
explain that observed fact. That is where a "theory" of evolution comes in.
The validity of any particular theory of evolution or any component of a
given theory of evolution is determined by it's ability to withstand all
attempts to disprove it. Disproving a theory negates the theory, it does
not disprove the fact of evolution.
Cheers,
anthonios
colin...@geocities.com wrote:
>>> "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking
>>> about, and express it in numbers, you know something about
>>> it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
>>> is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind ...
>>> --- Lord Kelvin
>>
>> And this applies wonderfully to natural selection.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Please go get introduced to biology yerself, and then maybe one day you'll
be able to 'measure' natural selection and 'express it in numbers'.
"Selection cannot be weighed, measured, or poured into a vial.
Selection doesn't explain evolution because it is not a material component
of the systems envolved".
And please don't bother mentioning R, S or h. They're but a theory within
artificial selection, and actually end up explaining (R at least) why
natural selection doesn't account for evolution.
The very 'theory' is useless. All we actually *know* on the field of
evolution is the outcome of paleontologists', taxonomists', chemists',
geneticists' work. To which the idea of 'natural selection' as the
explanation of evolution is completely marginal... and where it ceases to
be, nothing really has been accomplished.
--
am
roy.altholz
anthonios <ip20...@ip.pt> wrote in article <350EC410...@ip.pt>...
Natural selection may not be something you can measure with gradiated
beakers or measuring tapes, but natural selection *can* be observed and
*has been* and *is* being observed.
As far as the theory being usless, think of that the next time someone you
knows gets TB. Not the strain from a few years ago, but the newer, more
resistant to treatment, "kind".
Anne Gilbert
In a previous article, hbar...@pyrite.igs.indiana.edu (Henry Barwood) says:
>Jabriol wrote:
>
>Nonsense like:
>
>
>> “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
>> evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
>
>Yeah right. Hovind would not accept as proof anything less than the
>instaneous change of a gnat into a hippopotamus, and then his answer
>would be "look, a miracle occurred, praise God".
>
>> “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” —Genesis 1:1
>> “…thy word is truth.” —John 17:17
>
>And your proof for this unwarranted assertion is?
>
>Commercial for Kent Hovind's church snipped.
>
>Barwood
>
>
One of the reasons I *never* tangle with creationists is Kent Hovind's
garbage quoted above.
Anne Gilbert
--
Anne Gilbert
In a previous article, rjt...@express-news.net (Ron Tolle) says:
>intlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!204.156.128.20!news1.best.com!128.100.83.246.MISMATCH!ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
>
>
>--------------7899D9835D914849F34E36DA
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>
>
>Jabriol wrote:
>
Rather than simply accept that some things in scripture must be
>taken
>figuratively, they would rather re-write the known facts about evolution so that it
>fits
>fundamentalist dogma.
>
>
>
>--------------7899D9835D914849F34E36DA
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
><HTML>
>
>
><P>Jabriol wrote:
You are right on target about what creationists *really* want. It's not
that figurative interpretations of Genesis are incompatible with
scientific thinking(although there will be some in this group that think
they are), but that fundamentalists want to impose *their* brand of
belief on *everyone*. This, of course, includes the teaching of
"creationism",as well as things like prayer in schools, among other
agenda. And this is one reason I think we should all *ignore* rather
than try to challenge the beliefs of people like Hovind.
Anne Gilbert
--
colin...@geocities.com
In article <350EC410...@ip.pt>,
ip20...@ip.pt wrote:
> colin...@geocities.com wrote:
> >>> "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking
> >>> about, and express it in numbers, you know something about
> >>> it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
> >>> is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind ...
> >>> --- Lord Kelvin
> >> And this applies wonderfully to natural selection.
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
>
> Please go get introduced to biology yerself, and then maybe one day you'll
> be able to 'measure' natural selection and 'express it in numbers'.
I was under the impression that population genetics used numbers and
equations to represent natural selection (such as the equations at
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~bio21/equa.html) and fitness, but I'm not an expert,
so go ahead and show me how mistaken I was.
> "Selection cannot be weighed, measured, or poured into a vial.
> Selection doesn't explain evolution because it is not a material component
> of the systems envolved".
That doesn't sound like much of an argument to me. Selection is a property
of the systems involved as far as I can see. I think it can, in priciple,
be measured... maybe it's not often done in practice.
> And please don't bother mentioning R, S or h. They're but a theory within
> artificial selection, and actually end up explaining (R at least) why
> natural selection doesn't account for evolution.
Please go ahead and explain how R demonstrates that natural selection
doesn't account for evolution. I like to learn. As I said, I'm not an
expert, so it would be helpful if you could point to some references
(preferably on the web, though I'm not above going to the library) about
what you're talking about.
> The very 'theory' is useless. All we actually *know* on the field of
> evolution is the outcome of paleontologists', taxonomists', chemists',
> geneticists' work. To which the idea of 'natural selection' as the
> explanation of evolution is completely marginal... and where it ceases to
> be, nothing really has been accomplished.
BTW I'm not about to suggest that natural selection is the *only* thing
that fixes alleles in a population. Genetic drift is, I believe, more
important, at least in terms of molecular biology.
Colin.
Philip Nicholls
On 14 Mar 1998 20:50:38 -0500, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>“Evolutionism is a religious worldview 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 a
>clear violation of the First Amendment.”
>
>“I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
>evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
For some reason I am reminded of a group some years back that offerred
a large sum of money for "proof" that the Holocaust occurred.
Those who can, teach. Those who can't teach
become libertarians.
pn...@capital.net
Visit Mr. Nicholl's Web Page of Science at
www.capital.net/~pnich
Jay Hanson
> In article <6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>,> snip
> > “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical
> > evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
> > Dr. Kent Hovind
Proved by drug resistant bacteria.
Jay -- www.dieoff.org
Eric Boyd
Well, the creos (my new shorthand for creationists) would probably say
that's just microevolution. Of course, seems to me that if you allow
for microevolution, you must also allow for macroevolution. The
micro/macro distinction made by creos is a bit like saying that I
can't walk a mile because my stride is only a few feet long.
-seric
96906...@nene.ac.uk
In article <351425c6...@news.capital.net>,
pn...@capital.net (Philip Nicholls) wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 1998 20:50:38 -0500, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> >“Evolutionism is a religious worldview 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
a
> >clear violation of the First Amendment.”
> >
> >evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
>
> a large sum of money for "proof" that the Holocaust occurred.
>
> Those who can, teach. Those who can't teach
> become libertarians.
>
> pn...@capital.net
> Visit Mr. Nicholl's Web Page of Science at
> www.capital.net/~pnich
>
when I was 10 years old, and I am happy to do so again.
Of course, I cannot prove that this is exactly what happened, but science,
Artificial Life and the majority of Europeans agree that evolution is the
most likely explanation.
Of course, perhaps God has a sense of humour and just popped in a brilliant
system like evolution for no apparent reason. And of course he buried the
dinosaurs to make it look like they existed when they never did.
There is no problem to combine belief in God and evolution. It even enhances
belief IMHO. If you understand it, that is.
Anyway, please tell me how I can get those $10,000 as they would be quite a
blessing.
Yours,
The Rev. Alexander Knop
ma...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Eric Boyd (se...@hypercon.com) wrote:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2.6]
: In article <35135541...@ibm.net>, jah...@ibm.net wrote:
: > > In article <6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>,
: > > jab...@cris.com wrote:
: > > >
: > > > “Evolutionism is a religious worldview not supported by science,
: > > snip
: > > > “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any
empirical
: > > > evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
: > > snap
: > > > Dr. Kent Hovind
: >
: > Proved by drug resistant bacteria.
: > Jay -- www.dieoff.org
: Well, the creos (my new shorthand for creationists) would probably say
: that's just microevolution. Of course, seems to me that if you allow
: for microevolution, you must also allow for macroevolution. The
: micro/macro distinction made by creos is a bit like saying that I
: can't walk a mile because my stride is only a few feet long.
: -seric
There is an article in this months Scientific American about drug
resistance. I just glanced through it but it looks like it is simply a
case of better waste disposal on the bacterias part, and those genes were
there since God created the bacteria.
Mark Waluk
--
RD Heilman
Jay Hanson wrote in message <35135541...@ibm.net>...
>> In article <6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>,
>> jab...@cris.com wrote:
>> >
>> > “Evolutionism is a religious worldview not supported by science,
>> snip
>> > “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any
empirical
>> > evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
>> snap
>> > Dr. Kent Hovind
>
>Proved by drug resistant bacteria.
What about the Peppered Moth, biston betularis? Or the DDT resistant
insects observed 2 or 3 decades ago. Should these observations qualify?
These examples, unfortunately, do not qualify. This is not evolution! To
begin with there must have been in existance bugs and bacteria that
were already resistant, which was able to survive in their "hostile"
enviroments and then multiple in the same enviroment. You must
prove by empirical evidence that these resistant "bug" did NOT
existed prior to the discovery DDT and the so - called wonder drugs.
Does this qualify as evolution? I heard about an
experment 20+ years ago, in which a student working for his masters
in biology took two large open tanks. He painted the bottom and sides
of one a dark charcoal grey and the other a light grey. He obtained two
varieties of mosquito fish one a dark charcoal grey and the other a light
grey. He placed both varieties in equal numbers in the same tank. Each
day, for weeks he checked and catalogued the numbers remaining in the
tank as they fell prey to preditory birds. At the end of the fifth week
birds had taken 76% of the light fish and 18% of the charcoal fish He
then drained the contents of the dark tank and both varieties of
fish into the light grey tank. At the end of this experment there were
NO dark charcoal fish left in the tank but 12% of the light grey fish
remained. Is this not empirical evidence of and how evolution occurs?
Where do I collect my $10,000?
Reinhold Heilman
>Jay -- www.dieoff.org
>
Ivan
My friend this is situation which demonstrates selection of pre existing genotypes, not,
of creative adaption. At least, you can't logically prove that it isn't.
Peter Swindells
ma...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> Eric Boyd (se...@hypercon.com) wrote:
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2.6]
>
> : In article <35135541...@ibm.net>, jah...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> : > > jab...@cris.com wrote:
> : > > >
> : > > > “Evolutionism is a religious worldview not supported by science,
> : > > snip
> : > > > “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any
> empirical
> : > > > evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
> : > > snap
> : > > > Dr. Kent Hovind
> : >
> : > Proved by drug resistant bacteria.
>
> : Well, the creos (my new shorthand for creationists) would probably say
> : that's just microevolution. Of course, seems to me that if you allow
> : for microevolution, you must also allow for macroevolution. The
> : micro/macro distinction made by creos is a bit like saying that I
> : can't walk a mile because my stride is only a few feet long.
>
> : -seric
> There is an article in this months Scientific American about drug
> resistance. I just glanced through it but it looks like it is simply a
> case of better waste disposal on the bacterias part, and those genes were
> there since God created the bacteria.
>
> Mark Waluk
Since it is easy to produce resistant strains of bacteria from a single
nonresistant ancestor it is clear that some mutation is involved.
PETE
J.J. Gauch
ma...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> --
that's teh coping strategy for one class of antibiotic resistance. For
Ampicilin the strategy in E. Coli is to prodice an enzyme (beta lactamase)
that reneders the antibiotic useless. There are strains of E. Coli that do
not have the beta lactamase gene, however the gene can be put into these
bacteria after which they will grow on media that contain ampicillin. I know
this works because I have done it myself. Those that make me God?
Matt Silberstein
In sci.anthropology Ivan <iv...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>My friend this is situation which demonstrates selection of pre existing genotypes, not,
>of creative adaption. At least, you can't logically prove that it isn't.
I have no idea what you mean by "creative adaption", but that
certainly does not sound like evolution to me. And what is the idea
behind "logically proving" something is science. I would be much more
interested in demonstrating it by the evidence.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------
Rossignol's curious, albeit simply titled book, 'The Origins of a
World War', spoke in terms of 'secret treaties', drawn up between the
Ambassadors from Plutonia and Desdinova the foreign minister. These
treaties founded a secret science from the stars. Astronomy. The
career of evil.
Matt Silberstein
In sci.anthropology ma...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
[snip]
>There is an article in this months Scientific American about drug
>resistance. I just glanced through it but it looks like it is simply a
>case of better waste disposal on the bacterias part, and those genes were
>there since God created the bacteria.
Not that is an interesting claims. Are you sure that the Scientific
American article said that there were no changes in the DNA of these
bacteria over time?
David Johnston
ma...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> Eric Boyd (se...@hypercon.com) wrote:
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2.6]
>
> : In article <35135541...@ibm.net>, jah...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> : > > In article <6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>,
> : > > jab...@cris.com wrote:
> : > > >
> : > > > “Evolutionism is a religious worldview not supported by science,
> : > > snip
> : > > > “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any
> empirical
> : > > > evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
> : > > snap
> : > > > Dr. Kent Hovind
> : >
> : > Proved by drug resistant bacteria.
> : > Jay -- www.dieoff.org
>
> : Well, the creos (my new shorthand for creationists) would probably say
> : that's just microevolution. Of course, seems to me that if you allow
> : for microevolution, you must also allow for macroevolution. The
> : micro/macro distinction made by creos is a bit like saying that I
> : can't walk a mile because my stride is only a few feet long.
>
> : -seric
> resistance. I just glanced through it but it looks like it is simply a
> case of better waste disposal on the bacterias part, and those genes were
> there since God created the bacteria.
Then why didn't they already have "better waste disposal"?
Anne Gilbert
In a previous article, rd...@bellsouth.net ("RD Heilman") says:
>
>Jay Hanson wrote in message <35135541...@ibm.net>...
>>> In article <6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>,
>>> jab...@cris.com wrote:
>>> >
>
>Does this qualify as evolution? I heard about an
>experment 20+ years ago, in which a student working for his masters
>in biology took two large open tanks. He painted the bottom and sides
>of one a dark charcoal grey and the other a light grey. He obtained two
>varieties of mosquito fish one a dark charcoal grey and the other a light
>grey. He placed both varieties in equal numbers in the same tank. Each
>day, for weeks he checked and catalogued the numbers remaining in the
>tank as they fell prey to preditory birds. At the end of the fifth week
>birds had taken 76% of the light fish and 18% of the charcoal fish He
>then drained the contents of the dark tank and both varieties of
>fish into the light grey tank. At the end of this experment there were
>NO dark charcoal fish left in the tank but 12% of the light grey fish
>remained. Is this not empirical evidence of and how evolution occurs?
>Where do I collect my $10,000?
>
>Reinhold Heilman
>
>
>
>
>>Jay -- www.dieoff.org
>>
>
>
>
Hey wait a minute!!! I'm all confused. The peppered moth(bistula
betularis)is usually white with black spots because it lands on
white-barked trees and birds can't see them to eat them. In sooty,
industrial areas of Europe, some melanistic(black) moths began to
appear. Since the trees were black and sooty, the birds couldn't see them
to eat them, and they began to thrive, and became more numerous. Later,
when European cities began to clean up their pollution, the sooty trees
became white again, and the black moths declined and the white moths
became more numerous. This *isn't* evolution??? I was under the
impression that this kind of "microevolution" went on all the time.
Anne Gilbert
--
Anne Gilbert
keb...@scn.org, avgi...@hotmail.com
Visit my website at http://members.tripod.com/~kebara and read about my
Great Science Fiction Masterpiece
RD Heilman
Ivan wrote in message <35160D...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
>RD Heilman wrote:
>>
>> Jay Hanson wrote in message <35135541...@ibm.net>...
>> >> In article <6efc7u$e...@examiner.concentric.net>,
>> >> jab...@cris.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > “Evolutionism is a religious worldview not supported by science,
>> >> snip
>> >> > “I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any
>> empirical
>> >> > evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind
>> >> snap
>> >> > Dr. Kent Hovind
>> >
>> >Proved by drug resistant bacteria.
>>
>> What about the Peppered Moth, biston betularis? Or the DDT resistant
>> insects observed 2 or 3 decades ago. Should these observations qualify?
>>
>> These examples, unfortunately, do not qualify. This is not evolution! To
>> begin with there must have been in existance bugs and bacteria that
>> were already resistant, which was able to survive in their "hostile"
>> enviroments and then multiple in the same enviroment. You must
>> prove by empirical evidence that these resistant "bug" did NOT
>> existed prior to the discovery DDT and the so - called wonder drugs.
>>
>> Does this qualify as evolution? I heard about an
>> experment 20+ years ago, in which a student working for his masters
>> in biology took two large open tanks. He painted the bottom and sides
>> of one a dark charcoal grey and the other a light grey. He obtained two
>> varieties of mosquito fish one a dark charcoal grey and the other a light
>> grey. He placed both varieties in equal numbers in the same tank. Each
>> day, for weeks he checked and catalogued the numbers remaining in the
>> tank as they fell prey to preditory birds. At the end of the fifth week
>> birds had taken 76% of the light fish and 18% of the charcoal fish He
>> then drained the contents of the dark tank and both varieties of
>> fish into the light grey tank. At the end of this experment there were
>> NO dark charcoal fish left in the tank but 12% of the light grey fish
>> remained. Is this not empirical evidence of and how evolution occurs?
>> Where do I collect my $10,000?
>
>My friend this is situation which demonstrates selection of pre existing
genotypes, not,
>of creative adaption. At least, you can't logically prove that it isn't.
>
=========================================================
Yes, but by the same token you can not logically prove that these genotypes
did not come into existance *whole cloth* as a new mutation which enabled
certain
populations to survive in a hostile enviroment.
There is another point that definately will qualify as empirical evidence in
support of evolution. Every large vogel has scales on it's feet
(tarsometatarsus)
virtually to its knees from the ostrich to the dove. The only logical
conclusion based
upon this observation is that birds descended from reptiles.
Again where do I apply for my $10,000?
Raven
In article <35160D...@netcomuk.co.uk>, iv...@netcomuk.co.uk says...
> RD Heilman wrote:
> >
[deletia]
> My friend this is situation which demonstrates selection of pre existing genotypes, not,
> of creative adaption.
So? The $10,000 is for evidence of evolution, not creative adaptation.
ßlåçK WíÐöW
give up! the guy obviously isn't gonna give anyone $10,000. You are
wasting your time
--
Sincerely,
Stephen Donner
http://home.earthlink.net/~sdonner
Raven wrote in message ...
end