#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Why couldn't evolutionist beat Hovind's $250,000 offer?
| Add New Argument |
|
Because Hovind is a cheater. This is what he wants proved: 1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. 2. Planets and stars formed from space dust. 3. Matter created life by itself. 4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. 5. 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). 1-3 is not related to evolution at all. 4 may not be related, but it has been shown. 5 has been done. 1 is impossible to show empirically. Hence, no one can satisfy Hovind's offer. 1
point
1-2 is not related to evolution at all. 4 is related, but it has not been shown. 5 has been not done. 1 is impossible to show empirically. Hence, no one can satisfy Hovind's offer. (Assuming the point of Hovind's offer was not referring to evolution in itself, but the whole (macro)Evolutionist viewpoint.) 1-2 is not related to evolution at all. Life being created from matter is not related to evolution because evolution describes the process after life has been created. But, that has been shown as well. 4 is related, but it has not been shown. I am not sure what Hovind is asking for, so I don't know if he is asking for the evolution stuff or something unrelated. Seeing his track record for 1-3, I wasn't sure. But, it has been observed as well, sorry pal. 5 has been not done. You can live in denial, but there is enough evidence to satisfy the people who have their minds open. (Assuming the point of the argument is not referring to evolution in itself, but the whole evolutionist viewpoint.) We can't just take into account everything that an evolutionist would believe. 1
point
We can't just take into account everything that an evolutionist would believe I'm not. I am revising your argument, which was directed to Fun1 about Hovind's offer. I believe Hovind is referring to the whole stereotypical evolutionist viewpoint. I am taking into account what I think he meant by his argument, so if he wants to clear things up he can. To avoid confusion we must first define terms. Macroevolution: Over large periods of time, slight changes will occur with members of a certain species, eventually resulting in the creation of an entirely different species. Microevolution: Slight differences occurring within a certain species through adaptation, allowing certain members to better suited for their environment, while still remaining a member of its original species. (Eg. Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands which had different beaks depending on their diet: nuts, fruit, fish etc.) The whole (stereotypical) Evolutionist viewpoint: From what your first argument said, it looks like Hovind is referring to Evolutionists, which are stereotypically held to be atheist. It only makes sense for this to be the case, because if they had been Theistic evolutionists, the answers to all the questions would be that they came about by divine influence, and Hovind's whole offer would be pointless. My internet is messed up right now so I can only access perviously saved sites like this one, so all of these definitions and assumptions about Hovind are off the top of my head. If you disagree with any of that, just let me know and I will revise it when my internet works. Now according to these definitions: Life being created from matter is not related to evolution, but is related to the whole atheist evolutionist viewpoint (to which I assume Hovind is referring). I am not sure what Hovind is asking for, so I don't know if he is asking for the evolution stuff or something unrelated. Seeing his track record for 1-3, I wasn't sure. But, it has been observed as well, sorry pal. In your prior argument, you said "early life forms". Well considering they were "early", we don't have many of them around anymore, do we? Scientists may have made these observations you speak of, on organisms they believe to be similar to "early life forms", or maybe have even made logical assumptions based on some evidence, but no one can say anything is 100% certain about these life forms, considering they aren't any to observe. And if a fact is not 100% proven, it should not be brought up in a debate as a piece of evidence, or it is considered just an opinion. You can live in denial, but there is enough evidence to satisfy the people who have their minds open. And the same will be said of any form of theism by its followers. While microevolution is a proven scientific fact, macroevolution is a highly debated topic. While there may be some evidence, that points to Macroevolution being true, it is definitely not a 100% proven fact, which is why Evolutionist scientist are still looking for proof, and why we are having this debate. I'm not just picking on Evolution, no form of Theism or any belief at all is 100% proven, which is why there is so much controversy on the origins of life. And as I said before, if a fact is not 100% proven, it should not be brought up in a debate as a piece of evidence or it is considered just an opinion. You may believe Evolution to be true, but for the sake of this debates efficiency, please don't state it as a proven fact or we will get nowhere. If you say "there is a substantial amount of proof for Evolution, and many people believe it", a Christian could say "there is a substantial amount of proof for Christianity, and many people believe it" and any Muslim, Jew, Deist or Pantheist can say the same. I'm not. I am revising your argument... Your use of the word stereotype points out how Hovind is wrong. In your prior argument, you said "early life forms". Hovind starts off with a completely illogical first premise that needs to be proven. Clearly he doesn't want anyone to take his $250K. From there, I have no idea how dishonest he was trying to be because clearly he was trying to be dishonest. I was simply stating that I wasn't sure how much treachery he was including. Then I was simply trying to tell you why I wasn't sure. And if a fact is not 100% proven, it should not be brought up in a debate as a piece of evidence, or it is considered just an opinion. So, no more God debates then. And the same will be said of any form of theism by its followers. Except that their evidence is in the Bible, and mine is in a museum. While microevolution is a proven scientific fact, macroevolution is a highly debated topic. Yep, the denial is so out of control that you guys will go into crazy debates about it. which is why Evolutionist scientist are still looking for proof Wrong again. They are just trying to find all the fossils they can and recreate the timelines. They are not operating under the assumption that more evidence is needed. why we are having this debate And, wrong. The average IQ is 100, that's why the debate. You may believe Evolution to be true, but for the sake of this debates efficiency, please don't state it as a proven fact or we will get nowhere. Yeah, I would really get somewhere saying it isn't proven. If you say "there is a substantial amount of proof for Evolution, and many people believe it", a Christian could say "there is a substantial amount of proof for Christianity, and many people believe it" So, what you are saying is that even if I didn't say it is proven, I would get nowhere because you are in denial. See, you proved yourself wrong. 1
point
Your use of the word stereotype points out how Hovind is wrong. How so? I was clarifying that I don't believe Hovind was speaking to Evolutionists in general, but specifically atheist (stereotypical) evolutionists. I didn't have to use the word stereotype, I just decided to use it to point out the fact that Hovind was speaking to those who would naturally oppose his offer. So, no more God debates then. Well I never said that, but really they are pretty pointless. There is no 100% proof for either side, which is why neither will be convinced. Except that their evidence is in the Bible, and mine is in a museum. Ummm, first off, not all theists believe the Bible. Second, you believe your evidence is in museums. And Christians believe their evidence is in museums. You are saying that you have evidence supporting your beliefs, but the fact that the evidence ties into your beliefs is only your opinion. Yep, the denial is so out of control that you guys will go into crazy debates about it. Well apparently you will too. And this is what I meant when I said we should only use 100% proven facts as evidence. You are just assuming your point of view to be correct and that "us guys" are the ones in denial, so you are making statements backed up with no proof, only your opinion. Wrong again. They are just trying to find all the fossils they can and recreate the timelines. They are trying to find fossils? Why? You said they aren't looking for proof? What, are they going to use the fossils as decorations? They are not operating under the assumption that more evidence is needed. And this is why you are wrong. What sense does that make? They are operating on the assumption that more evidence is not needed? So they say evolution is a proven fact first, and then they look for the evidence to support it? A major point of science is that you cannot look for evidence under the assumption that your hypothesis is correct. And, wrong. The average IQ is 100, that's why the debate. What? I'm not sure if this is a straw man argument, or a red herring. Yeah, I would really get somewhere saying it isn't proven. More so than what you are doing now. Your proof is that your beliefs are correct so anything opposing them is incorrect. But you have no proof supporting the fact that your beliefs are correct. So, what you are saying is that even if I didn't say it is proven, I would get nowhere because you are in denial. See, you proved yourself wrong. And the only reason you think I'm in denial is because you are under the assumption that your beliefs are flawless, and require no more proof even though they haven't been 100% proven. It looks like you're really the one in denial. How so? He wants someone to give him proof that a scientific theory is true, but he asks for proof that his stereotypical thoughts on evolution be proved. That's clearly trying to be deceptive. I didn't have to use the word stereotype It didn't matter what word you used, Hovind is being an asshole. Even a defender of Hovind can't help but describe it in a way that makes Hovind a dishonest person. Well I never said that, but really they are pretty pointless. There is no 100% proof for either side, which is why neither will be convinced. You can't mention God in a debate according to you because He is not 100% proven. So, no more debates. Ummm, first off, not all theists believe the Bible. Second, you believe your evidence is in museums. And Christians believe their evidence is in museums. You are saying that you have evidence supporting your beliefs, but the fact that the evidence ties into your beliefs is only your opinion. Weird, Christians never use a museum to point to their evidence though. Well apparently you will too. And this is what I meant when I said we should only use 100% proven facts as evidence. You are just assuming your point of view to be correct and that "us guys" are the ones in denial, so you are making statements backed up with no proof, only your opinion. We actually have evidence for our side loser. They are trying to find fossils? Why? You said they aren't looking for proof? What, are they going to use the fossils as decorations? Scientists like to know how things work. If they were satisfied with everything they knew, they could open up a Bible, read it once, and know everything. Finding out everything that the fossil record can tell us does not mean that they are missing evidence. Saying that you know something is true because it is described in the Bible means that you are missing evidence. And this is why you are wrong. What sense does that make? They are operating on the assumption that more evidence is not needed? So they say evolution is a proven fact first, and then they look for the evidence to support it? A major point of science is that you cannot look for evidence under the assumption that your hypothesis is correct. They already found enough evidence dumbass. Your side says Bible is all you need, you aren't really able to say anything, sorry. What? I'm not sure if this is a straw man argument, or a red herring. There are always stupid people to talk to. More so than what you are doing now. Your proof is that your beliefs are correct so anything opposing them is incorrect. But you have no proof supporting the fact that your beliefs are correct. It isn't because it is my belief. I support the side that has been proven. I happen to be on the right side. I don't think you are wrong for being on the other side of me, but for being on the wrong side, huge difference. And the only reason you think I'm in denial is because you are under the assumption that your beliefs are flawless, and require no more proof even though they haven't been 100% proven. It looks like you're really the one in denial. Notice how you didn't address the fact that you proved me right. 1
point
He wants someone to give him proof that a scientific theory is true, but he asks for proof that his stereotypical thoughts on evolution be proved. That's clearly trying to be deceptive. Maybe he is trying to be deceptive. But the fact that I said "stereotypical" has nothing to do with that. It didn't matter what word you used, Hovind is being an asshole. Even a defender of Hovind can't help but describe it in a way that makes Hovind a dishonest person. Believe it or not, I don't actually believe Hovind's offer is a fair challenge, and I never said that in any of my arguments. You can't mention God in a debate according to you because He is not 100% proven. So, no more debates. I didn't mean you can't mention something that isn't 10% proven, I meant you can't state it as evidence. And actually, I never use God or the Bible as evidence in any of my debates/arguments, because neither is 100% proven. Weird, Christians never use a museum to point to their evidence though. If you talk to any Christian, they will say that the wide spread fossilization of Dinosaurs, as well as the separation of Pangea and the creation of many mountain ranges, is due to the Great Flood. I'm not saying its true, and no, it isn't brought up as evidence too often, but they still sometimes do. We actually have evidence for our side loser. So you believe. As do Muslims, Christians and any other theist. Notice how you keep saying you have evidence, but never provide any. They already found enough evidence dumbass. You really are mislead. And not too bright either. Why do you keep saying you have evidence, and only provide your irrelevant, uninformed, unintelligent opinion? Your side says Bible is all you need, you aren't really able to say anything, sorry. You really know nothing about Christianity, so why do you keep acting like you do? I won't even address this point, because I don't have time to sit here and explain the whole of Christian beliefs to an ignorant person such as yourself. There are always stupid people to talk to. Ooooh I know right? I hate that! Especially when they are really stubborn, and keep saying the same thing over and over when none of it is actually relevant, and without providing any proof supporting them. I support the side that has been proven. I happen to be on the right side. I don't think you are wrong for being on the other side of me, but for being on the wrong side, huge difference. Wow. Again with the unsupported claims, saying you're right just because you think you are. No evidence again? You can say all you want that there is no evidence supporting the Bible, but considering you made the initial argument, you bear the burden of proof. So unless you come up with something other than "I'm right, you're wrong" you can be on the wrong side just as much as I am. Notice how you didn't address the fact that you proved me right Notice how I never proved you right. Maybe he is trying to be deceptive. But the fact that I said "stereotypical" has nothing to do with that. Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was not saying that the word stereotype indicates that he is being deceptive. I am saying that specifically that since he is targeting a stereotypical belief instead of a real one. I was pointing out that the fact that your mind immediately realized that it was the stereotypical explanation was a good tip off for what he did. Believe it or not, I don't actually believe Hovind's offer is a fair challenge, and I never said that in any of my arguments. Ok, noted, but you still defended him. I didn't mean you can't mention something that isn't 10% proven, I meant you can't state it as evidence. And actually, I never use God or the Bible as evidence in any of my debates/arguments, because neither is 100% proven. Ok, I consider that a challenge and hope to catch you in the future. If you talk to any Christian Obviously not true. they will say that the wide spread fossilization of Dinosaurs, as well as the separation of Pangea and the creation of many mountain ranges, is due to the Great Flood. Which museum describes that? So you believe. As do Muslims, Christians and any other theist. Notice how you keep saying you have evidence, but never provide any. Here is something. You really know nothing about Christianity Obviously not true. Wow. Again with the unsupported claims, saying you're right just because you think you are. This is exactly the opposite of what I just explained to you. Evolution is the most supported theory in history. What do you want me to do? Do you want me to go out and learn what everyone has provided on the topic? Go out to fossil sites and dig up remains that prove evolution? What then, you won't believe me anyway. You are the one who needs to go out and learn that stuff, not me, I have accepted it. Evolution is so widely accepted that the burden of proof has been satisfied and you need to provide evidence to support your claim. And not because it is the side that I am on. This is a huge theory that has not been discredited. In this specific case saying that this idea is false requires evidence. What part of evolution do you not like? You can say all you want that there is no evidence supporting the Bible, but considering you made the initial argument, you bear the burden of proof. Some stuff in the Bible is supported and some is not. Like, the fact that Mount Sinai exists is supported. Sky wizard with super powers, not supported. |
