|
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
 Posted - 12/19/2004 : 09:35:32
|
quote:
Since Creationists think that offering a bunch of money to disprove evolution means their religion is right and should be taught in a science class, I have decided to offer a million dollars to anyone who can prove Young Earth Creationism. Like some Creationists, they must meet certain guidelines to win:
1. You must prove with scientific evidence that God exists (the Christian God of course). Have Him knock at my door during 8 am to 11 pm Central Time as I am usually awake then.
2. You must prove that the Earth is six thousand years old, or less. You must explain, however, why all the current geologic methods are wrong.
3. You must prove the Earth is flat as the Bible most certainly says this. Later I will have an article on all the flat references to the Earth, and anyone wanting to apply for this offer must present evidence.
4. You must prove there is an afterlife scientifically. Have the tickets sent to my address, first email me to get my address and you can send the tickets there.
If you can prove all of this, I will send you a million dollars. First, however, I will have a reviewed panel of atheists who will look into your evidence. The criteria must fit the above listed and the atheists on my panel must all become deluded Christians. After this miracle, you will receive your million dollars.
Before submitting evidence, I suggest you pay attention to the guidelines:
1. You must present actual evidence; scientific evidence.
2. Present current scientific peer reviewed information, no two thousand year old document that contradicts itself.
3. The twelve atheists on my panel must be converted before you receive your money. If they don't buy it, you don't get the money.
You also have the option of disproving evolution for a million dollars. However, you must go by these guidelines:
1. You must prove that natural selection not only is false, but doesn't work. This is considered by evolutionists to be the design part of evolution making sure that successful traits survive.
2. You must prove that beneficial mutations that add genetic information don't exist (like the Nylon bug and the CD4 gene). This is considered to be the "chance" part of evolution, and successful genes are inherited.
3. You must prove that traits are not inherited, as this would totally disprove evolution.
You must disprove all three in order to receive a million dollars. Again, you must submit the following to get the money:
1. You must present scientific evidence.
2. You must submit current up to date, scientific peer reviewed information.
3. There will be twelve evolutionists on my panel that will review your information. If they are convinced that you are correct, then you will receive your million dollars.
Good luck in your million dollar quest. While you do, keep on dreaming that your religion is true while our science is baloney!
Source: http://www.skeptictimes.com/million.html
take care,
tk
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2004 : 10:09:50 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry tkster, but that smells just as bad as your prove evolution one.
quote:
1. You must prove with scientific evidence that God exists (the Christian God of course). Have Him knock at my door during 8 am to 11 pm Central Time as I am usually awake then.
Hoping the second part is a joke, they do not feel they need to prove the existance of God. That is why they use faith, they openly admit they have no evidence (well, most that is).
quote:
2. You must prove that the Earth is six thousand years old, or less. You must explain, however, why all the current geologic methods are wrong.
That seems like way to much evidence needed. What if you could just show the Earth is 6,000 years old? Would that not show that all other methods are wrong? Furthermore, why must you show all of them are wrong? How many are there? If you can show that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that should be all that is needed.
quote:
3. You must prove the Earth is flat as the Bible most certainly says this. Later I will have an article on all the flat references to the Earth, and anyone wanting to apply for this offer must present evidence.
(Here we go again)
This is a strawman. You believe that the Bible says this, other people don't. So now you are asking them to prove your Creation, not theirs. If someone doesn't think the Bible says this and disagrees with whatever verse you think says this, then you must go off of what they think, as it is their explaination for the creation of the world. Changing what they think to what you think is a strawman.
quote:
4. You must prove there is an afterlife scientifically. Have the tickets sent to my address, first email me to get my address and you can send the tickets there.
What???? What does this have to do with Creation? Now you are saying, "Prove the entire Bible", not "Prove Creation." Creation has nothing to do with the afterlife.
And now the evolution part:
quote:
1. You must prove that natural selection not only is false, but doesn't work. This is considered by evolutionists to be the design part of evolution making sure that successful traits survive.
Natural selection can very well be true, but evolution still be false. If natural selection does indeed work, but there is some limit to how much dna can change or if it can't change at all, natural selection will still work, but evolution would not be possible.
quote:
2. You must prove that beneficial mutations that add genetic information don't exist (like the Nylon bug and the CD4 gene). This is considered to be the "chance" part of evolution, and successful genes are inherited.
How do you prove something doesn't exist? You should rephrase this to "the ones that we know of are false."
quote:
3. You must prove that traits are not inherited, as this would totally disprove evolution.
This would show evolution to be false, but evolution may be false while this is still true. Therefore this can not be a criteria. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
 |
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2004 : 10:14:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Hoping the second part is a joke, they do not feel they need to prove the existance of God. That is why they use faith, they openly admit they have no evidence (well, most that is).
But of course, the second part is a joke.
quote:
(Here we go again)
This is a strawman. You believe that the Bible says this, other people don't. So now you are asking them to prove your Creation, not theirs. If someone doesn't think the Bible says this and disagrees with whatever verse you think says this, then you must go off of what they think, as it is their explaination for the creation of the world. Changing what they think to what you think is a strawman.
Indeed! And they have the option of pointing otherwise. I have been in several of these debates and won, the Bible clearly says the earth is flat.
quote:
What???? What does this have to do with Creation? Now you are saying, "Prove the entire Bible", not "Prove Creation." Creation has nothing to do with the afterlife.
EXACTLY! What does the big bang have to do with evolution? See ... it's a satire on Hovind.
quote:
Natural selection can very well be true, but evolution still be false. If natural selection does indeed work, but there is some limit to how much dna can change or if it can't change at all, natural selection will still work, but evolution would not be possible.
...
How do you prove something doesn't exist? You should rephrase this to "the ones that we know of are false."
...
This would show evolution to be false, but evolution may be false while this is still true. Therefore this can not be a criteria.
The work as a whole. So the point is you have to disprove all there. Heck, I'm not offering a million dollars for someone to refute one point. No, I want to see actual evidence.
But like Hovind's offer, the point is they can't. And it's so obvious to the average reader, which is my point, this should be so obvious on Hovind as well.
tk |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2004 : 10:59:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
2. You must prove that the Earth is six thousand years old, or less. You must explain, however, why all the current geologic methods are wrong.
That seems like way to much evidence needed. What if you could just show the Earth is 6,000 years old? Would that not show that all other methods are wrong? Furthermore, why must you show all of them are wrong? How many are there? If you can show that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that should be all that is needed.
But proving that the earth is 6,000 years old already automatically entails providing explanations why dates given by other methods are wrong. You'll have to do both, else you haven't proven zilch, except that we don't know the age of the earth. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2004 : 15:52:28 [Permalink]
|
Maybe you should preface the whole thing with a disclaimer, cleearly stating that it's satire.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 06:20:24 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah at least Randi actually has the million set aside in an untouchable account, this type of behavior doesnt help us. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 07:38:38 [Permalink]
|
I think that makes sense. Put up a warning sign that it is a parody on our beloved Kent's challenge and link to it. This way, probably only half of the creationists will fall for it. I've noticed an extreme lack in ability to discern parody/satire when it comes to creationists. At christianforums I've noticed that with most threads which are meant as a parody on creationist arguments, you'll get at least two or three YECs telling the original poster what a great job he/she has done. If you're lucky, you'll get 1 or 2 YECs telling the poster to set her arguments straight. You'll get 3 or 4 evolutionists trying to correct the arguments. And you'll get a whole bunch of evolutionists laughing over the complete sillyness of the thread. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 19:19:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Maybe you should preface the whole thing with a disclaimer, cleearly stating that it's satire.
Okay, in my time off I have altered it a little. I took down the for Creationist challenge and am offering money to disprove what evolution is.
But it is still satire and you can see this because I start it off now like this:
quote:
Creationists are an interesting group of people. Many of them think that offering money to prove what they call "evolution" which no biologist would agree to somehow disproves this. They make bold claims to everyone and yet in debates are crushed. It is almost amazing that this ignorance continues, however, one Creationist in particular - who I won't name - said that if evolutionists were so sure that evolution was false they should offer money to Creationists to disprove it. I thought that was a great idea, and so that is what I've done.
I didn't want to link to Dr. Hovind or what not, but this is clearly hilarious. Anyone who knows just a little will catch who I am referring to here.
tk |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 03:17:47 [Permalink]
|
That seems like way to much evidence needed. What if you could just show the Earth is 6,000 years old? Would that not show that all other methods are wrong? Furthermore, why must you show all of them are wrong? How many are there? If you can show that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that should be all that is needed.
The testiment in the Bible in Genesis says that when Gods Spirit moved on the face of the deep the earth was void and without form! You must ask yourself how long it was void and without form! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 04:22:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
That seems like way to much evidence needed. What if you could just show the Earth is 6,000 years old? Would that not show that all other methods are wrong? Furthermore, why must you show all of them are wrong? How many are there? If you can show that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that should be all that is needed.
Please do!
You will have to show that the evidence favours a 6 k year old instead of a 4.55 G year old earth.
"Of course like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."
-- Woodrow Wilson, 1922 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 05:25:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
I didn't want to link to Dr. Hovind or what not, but this is clearly hilarious. Anyone who knows just a little will catch who I am referring to here.
tk
As I said in my previous post, in my experience creationists are uttlerly incapable of understanding satire, even after it has been pointed out that it is satire. The post by our resident creationist seems to prove my point. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 12:03:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
That seems like way to much evidence needed. What if you could just show the Earth is 6,000 years old? Would that not show that all other methods are wrong? Furthermore, why must you show all of them are wrong? How many are there? If you can show that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that should be all that is needed.
The testiment in the Bible in Genesis says that when Gods Spirit moved on the face of the deep the earth was void and without form! You must ask yourself how long it was void and without form!
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD (no pun intended)!!! THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC SOURCE OF INFORMATION!
tk |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
