Can anybody provide proof for evolution? This guy Kent Hovind will pay anyone $250,000 for providing tanglible evidence and will debate anybody who asks.
>Try giving a reasonable answer without sperging like an autist.
Can anybody provide proof for evolution? This guy Kent Hovind will pay anyone $250...
Adrian Martinez
Angel Mitchell
No, that's why it's called a theory. It's merely the one that makes the most sense and is the most likely at the current point.
Austin Gonzalez
it's not a theory in the way the word implies (the evidence could go either way). Evolution isn't a theory in that sense, since the evidence is firmly behind evolution.
The word 'theory' has traditionally been used by scientists to mean something like 'a coherent framework to explain observations', so evolution is a theory in that sense.
Michael Ortiz
>it's a theory
lol you fucking idiot
Anthony Morales
Chase Sullivan
>This guy Kent Hovind will pay anyone $250,000 for providing tanglible evidence
No, he will not. Rather, he will find some excuse to dismiss any and all pieces of evidence shown to him.
Sebastian Murphy
These guys just put up this money so that their followers can point to nobody obtaining it as proof that it's false.
No amount of proof will ever be considered acceptable for him.
Wyatt Wright
Nicholas Howard
>why
The fact that living things change over time is a fact
Natural selection, niche construction, are more heuristical than theory. They are ideas used to examine the facts, not models of the facts themselves.
Josiah Hughes
For an actual theory I think we need a general model of biosemiotics, their syntax and semantics, especially the dynamic parts. So something like Peirce's 1st 2nd 3rds except put into a hierarchical model to explain things like complex realizability and downwards causation
Andrew Robinson
This. Provide him with skulls, he'll either dismiss them as deformed men or hoaxes. Provide him with astrophysical evidence, he'll say they weren't constant.
Jacob Brown
The best way to go about is to first convince him that new world protestantism is retarded, and introduce him to milder forms of protestantism like Lutheranism or Anglicanism, or just plain old Catholicism. After that it's easy to explain to him, that taking the Book of Genesis (and the bible as a whole) literally is just a (relatively) modern meme and taking it as a metaphore is more theologically sound. That leads to the quite correct idea that evolution doesn't really contradict the Book of Genesis
Ethan Thompson
youtube.com
Just going to leave this here
Tyler Clark
This. You can't convince these people with scientists. You convince them with theologians.
Noah Diaz
Christ, is this /b/ and/or /pol/?
Morons should leave this board and quit spamming.
Ryder Ortiz
Fucking this. Tried to use actual fossils with a creationist, and he just fell back on presuppositionalism and Dr. (Theology) Bahnsen's "refutation" of evolution. He even used the first portion of a video debunking creationist claims as evidenc eagainst evolution. Saddest part is he was a BV
Aiden Cruz
>taking a bet from a tax fraud.
Kek
Juan Hernandez
Not that guy, but I don't think he's wrong, since proof is a more like a legal concept. For example gravitational theory isn't proven, it's just the best at making actual predictions. Theories aren't right or wrong in the traditional sense, just useful or not for making predictions.
Ethan Scott
>legal concept
>not proven
Since the jury was not actually there as witnesses at the time of the murder we must find that the defendant is not guilty even with all the evidence that points to the crime having occurred.
Anthony Parker
Ali G already destroyed this guy.
William Foster
literally get a plate and spread e.coli on it and smear some antibiotic on it. 1% will survive and spread.
E V O L U T I O N
Noah Wood
MOTHER FUCKING BAM. B-B-B-BAM BAM BAM
Kayden Allen
when do you have enough evidence to convict someone? is there an absolute amount of "evidence points" which add up to a guilty or innocent verdict?
or does a judge decide in the end?
Owen Hughes
He'll just redefine "proof" to keep the goalposts out of reach using some ad hoc semantic garbage. Intellectual honesty is foreign to people like Kent.
Jeremiah Williams
gravity is a fucking theory and you are still not floating in space.
Juan Richardson
The offer you're talking about says that you have to prove these five events happened 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).
Which makes it impossible to win, and the last point is the only really evolution based proof he's asking for which there is plenty of.
You can't prove there's no God though, so the offer itself is bullshit.
Chase Evans
/thread
Christian Adams
2 & 4 are easy
>"muh" gravity. Literally stars are right now and you can see it with telescopes.
>Abiotic molecules learned to reproduce themselves way before life
Matthew King
>stars are forming right now
Benjamin Peterson
Oh yay, it's a Gish gallop.
Justin Hall
What about those bacteria that evolved to eat plastic? What is Kent's opinion on that?
Lincoln Hernandez
...
Bentley Cooper
In science, 'theory' is pretty damn solid,
it's like a nuclear-powered supercarrier,
almost impossible to sink. To become a theory, it has to:
1) explain all observed phenomena
2) predict new phenomena
3) have the predictions verified by testing
A theory is 1+2+3, a hypothesis is 1+2.
It is said that the everyday use of 'theory' is about the same as the scientific definition of 'hypothesis', but I disagree - the everyday usage barely covers (1), and often it doesn't rise even to that level.
Grayson Price
Who cares about your retarded country and """Christians"""
Nolan Barnes
>a reasonable answer
the reasonable answer is that it doesn't matter if evolution is "true" or not. its a useful assumption to model with and thats why its the status quo.
religious types chimped out and made a huge stink over something that would have other wise been a single chapter in a college level biology/geology textbook. athiests saw how salty it made people so they champion it to stir the pot for their own agenda.