Nu sidder jeg lige og ser lidt af det astral, og de snakker om at Dr. Kent Hovind har udlovet 250.000$ til den der kommer med emperiske beviser for evolution og at ingen at gjort det endnu = Evolution ikke er en fact.
Men først og fremmest; Kent Hovind er ikke Dr.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html <-- kig for at se hvor mange af de "videnskabsmænd" der er kreationister har fået deres grader fra.
Og så er hans 250.000$ spørgsmål umuligt at svare:
Citat:
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.
Se det virker jo som en simpelt spørgsmål. Meeen der er osse nogle fodnoter til spørgsmålet:
Citat:
* 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:
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).
De 3 første har intet med evolution at gøre, den første er alt andet end evolution, den 2. er astronomi, den 3 er abiogenese.
Ydermere skal man bevise at det fandt sted uden gud. Hvordan skulle man kunne bevise det? At der ikke er en gud der havde en rolle i big bang, abiogenese osv. Det er nok de færreste der ville sige at det er 100% at gud ikke havde en rolle i det.
Men hovhov... Den såkaldte DR. Kent er ikke færdig endnu. For der er jo sse lige How to collect the $250,000:
Citat:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution . . . is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Og så kommer der lige et stort stykke her fra Talk.Origins:
Citat:
Initially, why should there be a requirement that the applicant "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" any part of evolution? That is a legal standard having nothing to do with the process of science. (As we will see later, there may be good reason for Hovind to insert legal terminology.) Not only that, the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" seems excessive. After all, why should science be put to that standard when most things in our day-to-day lives, including religious beliefs, are not? Still, it is not necessarily an insurmountable burden, though meeting it for the full range of the "general theory of evolution" would doubtless be difficult and certainly time-consuming.
But go back and note the wording: "the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence". How do you prove that anything is the only possible way "life, the universe and everything" could have come into existence? Again it is calling for proof of a negative and what a negative!
In essence, you would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that God not only didn't create the universe or anything in it, but that God couldn't have done it. Since an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient being can obviously do anything it likes, including using "naturalistic" or "theistic" evolution [12] to develop the panoply of life, you logically have to prove, by empirical evidence, that God doesn't exist at all in order to meet Hovind's terms. Clearly this is, as it is no doubt intended to be, an impossible task. [As many Christian theists have been the first to insist, the only way one could know definitively that God did not exist would be to be absolutely omniscient and omnipresent; in other words, to be God oneself. --Ed.]
To summarize, Hovind has gone, in the course of presenting his offer, from promising money to anyone who can present any scientific evidence for evolution; to demanding scientific evidence of a strawman version of evolution covering numerous branches of science; to demanding not merely evidence, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt; to demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God didn't do everything; to demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God couldn't do anything and, ultimately, to demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist. At the very least, Hovind's claim that he will pay $250,000 for "any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution" can be said to be deeply deceptive.
En sidste ting, her er en side der gennemgår de fleste argumenter for kreationisme, læs det da:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
Log ind
Tilmeld
OSS
Søg
