$250,000 award
October 18, 2005 2:49 PM Subscribe
$250,000 award - if you can prove Darwin's theory of evolution.
My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Ha, ha. No, not quite.
posted by boo_radley at 2:52 PM on October 18, 2005
I believe this man has been offering this reward for a long time now. Unfortunately, he gets to set the terms on what constitutes 'proof', so not attempt has been met with success.
posted by WetherMan at 2:53 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by WetherMan at 2:53 PM on October 18, 2005
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Is this true? I don't think that was in my biology book. I know that some scientists have brought evolutionary theory into the realm of cosmology, but Evolution (big E) and Natural Selection are mostly concerned with the development of organisms, no? Biology is not my strong suit. Nor is cosmology (surprise!).
I guess what I'm asking is if Evolution (big E) really pertains that much to the Big Bang.
I can see why the Big Bang riles creationists, obviously.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:54 PM on October 18, 2005
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Is this true? I don't think that was in my biology book. I know that some scientists have brought evolutionary theory into the realm of cosmology, but Evolution (big E) and Natural Selection are mostly concerned with the development of organisms, no? Biology is not my strong suit. Nor is cosmology (surprise!).
I guess what I'm asking is if Evolution (big E) really pertains that much to the Big Bang.
I can see why the Big Bang riles creationists, obviously.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:54 PM on October 18, 2005
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
That's a bit of a "dead giveaway."
posted by rxrfrx at 2:54 PM on October 18, 2005
That's a bit of a "dead giveaway."
posted by rxrfrx at 2:54 PM on October 18, 2005
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
This statement seems blatantly false. Bah.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:55 PM on October 18, 2005
This statement seems blatantly false. Bah.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:55 PM on October 18, 2005
I can see why the Big Bang riles creationists, obviously.
Funny you say that, 'cause it's been argued that Big Bang theory (which replaced the formerly preferred eternal unchanging universe model) was actually the product of a creationist plot in the first place... (see, they needed the model to incorporate a beginning to the universe in order to posit the existence of a creator...)
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:57 PM on October 18, 2005
Funny you say that, 'cause it's been argued that Big Bang theory (which replaced the formerly preferred eternal unchanging universe model) was actually the product of a creationist plot in the first place... (see, they needed the model to incorporate a beginning to the universe in order to posit the existence of a creator...)
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:57 PM on October 18, 2005
We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum
There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind
Slipping on one's own banana peel?
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:57 PM on October 18, 2005
There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind
Slipping on one's own banana peel?
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:57 PM on October 18, 2005
There's more to evolution than mutation and selection but here's a decent collection of empirical evidence. Here's another link on theories of how life originated as well as one based on clay as a template substrate for prebiotic life. Good luck to anyone on collecting the $250K.
posted by Rothko at 2:58 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by Rothko at 2:58 PM on October 18, 2005
science doesn't work like that. in fact, it's terribly negative - "doing science" is basically proving that things are wrong. you don't prove things are right - you just end up with some things left standing when you clear the rest away. evolution is still standing.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:58 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by andrew cooke at 2:58 PM on October 18, 2005
When the man that gets to decide what "proof" is is an idiot with absolutely no knowledge of the field he purports to debunk, well, methinks that's a suckers game.
Alas, I thought we were supposed to be at least a little bit beyond an age of rampant superstition. I guess I'm just too much of an optimist.
posted by teece at 2:59 PM on October 18, 2005
Alas, I thought we were supposed to be at least a little bit beyond an age of rampant superstition. I guess I'm just too much of an optimist.
posted by teece at 2:59 PM on October 18, 2005
Dear Dr. Hovind,
"Evolution", "Science", "Religion", "Proof" and "Evidence" do not mean what you think they mean. Please refrain from using them in polite converstaion until you fully grasp their meaning.
Thank you.
posted by signal at 3:00 PM on October 18, 2005
"Evolution", "Science", "Religion", "Proof" and "Evidence" do not mean what you think they mean. Please refrain from using them in polite converstaion until you fully grasp their meaning.
Thank you.
posted by signal at 3:00 PM on October 18, 2005
no one has ever [...] been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind.
Maybe he wants fruit flies to grow opposable thumbs before his eyes?
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:00 PM on October 18, 2005
Maybe he wants fruit flies to grow opposable thumbs before his eyes?
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:00 PM on October 18, 2005
here's a link related to the eternalist vs. big bang comment (not gonna vouch too much for the quality of it though...)...
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 3:00 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 3:00 PM on October 18, 2005
It's not as if anyone who thinks evolution is some kind of hoax really understands science anyway. If this guy really understood that science is about disproving false things, not proving true things, then he wouldn't be arguing what he is.
posted by rxrfrx at 3:01 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by rxrfrx at 3:01 PM on October 18, 2005
Of course, there is also an equivalent award to anyone who can prove Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I could use the money, but so far I'm coming up empty.
posted by adamrice at 3:01 PM on October 18, 2005
I could use the money, but so far I'm coming up empty.
posted by adamrice at 3:01 PM on October 18, 2005
Hey I am offering $500,000 to anyone who can "prove" creationism is true.
Rule 1. You can not point to the bible.
Rule 2....
/snark
posted by edgeways at 3:03 PM on October 18, 2005
Rule 1. You can not point to the bible.
Rule 2....
/snark
posted by edgeways at 3:03 PM on October 18, 2005
My science is lacking, how is it a fact (or common knowledge for that matter) that the earth is not "billions of years old." I was under the impression that the planet was slightly over 4.62 billion years old.
posted by mervin_shnegwood at 3:03 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by mervin_shnegwood at 3:03 PM on October 18, 2005
Hovind's a young-earth creationist, right? The pictures of dinosaurs on that page have more significance than he intends...
posted by mr_roboto at 3:05 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by mr_roboto at 3:05 PM on October 18, 2005
$5,000,000 award - if you can prove Aristotle's theory of gravity.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:05 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 3:05 PM on October 18, 2005
...Prove beyond a reasonable doubt...
Oh. REASONABLE. Well forget it.
posted by tkchrist at 3:06 PM on October 18, 2005
Oh. REASONABLE. Well forget it.
posted by tkchrist at 3:06 PM on October 18, 2005
Kent Horvand's "offer" is rather famous (and, obviously, impossible to collect). There is a whole FAQ on it. There's some rather nasty stuff on the guy as well.
posted by blahblahblah at 3:06 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by blahblahblah at 3:06 PM on October 18, 2005
From a recent press release from the Geological Society of America:
So how does a scientist or teacher defend evolution against trained attackers? "Don't," suggests geoscientist Donald Wise from the University of Massachusetts. Instead, go after the deep flaws in ID. Take the human body, for instance, he says in his GSA presentation. It's a great argument against ID. Anyone who has ever had back pain or clogged sinuses can testify to this. Our evolutionarily recent upright posture explains our terrible back problems better than ID, and our squished, very poorly "designed" sinuses don't function at all well and are easily explained by the evolutionarily rapid enlargement of our brains.
Wise's advice to scientists and educators is to: 1) get off the defensive; 2) focus on the ample weak points of Intelligent Design; 3) keep it simple; 4) accentuate it with humor; and 5) stick to irrefutable facts close to evolution and relevant to voters.
posted by Hobbacocka at 3:07 PM on October 18, 2005
So how does a scientist or teacher defend evolution against trained attackers? "Don't," suggests geoscientist Donald Wise from the University of Massachusetts. Instead, go after the deep flaws in ID. Take the human body, for instance, he says in his GSA presentation. It's a great argument against ID. Anyone who has ever had back pain or clogged sinuses can testify to this. Our evolutionarily recent upright posture explains our terrible back problems better than ID, and our squished, very poorly "designed" sinuses don't function at all well and are easily explained by the evolutionarily rapid enlargement of our brains.
Wise's advice to scientists and educators is to: 1) get off the defensive; 2) focus on the ample weak points of Intelligent Design; 3) keep it simple; 4) accentuate it with humor; and 5) stick to irrefutable facts close to evolution and relevant to voters.
posted by Hobbacocka at 3:07 PM on October 18, 2005
I mean Newton's theory of gravity.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:07 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 3:07 PM on October 18, 2005
$1 million to the person that can prove yesterday really happened.
posted by iamck at 3:07 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by iamck at 3:07 PM on October 18, 2005
The key phrase in his tirade is:
"These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor"
How about it folks: address his question.
Start with DNA and homologies between sequence, protein, pathways, processes. Look at morphology similarities in substructures of cell, embryos, etc. For chrissake* I'm not a biologist, but I know this stuff.
Ask if these are the result of 'someone' using the same toolkit or evolution? Give probabilities based on design processes we understand and optimal designs vs the contingent designs of evolution (eyes having blind spots at optic nerve meeting pt as classic example of a lack of 'design').
I'd like to see sensible questions (such as the one above) addressed in clear language to sway the people who actually think about this and to rebut people like Kent Hovind who suggest that scientists have never addressed this question.
*tee hee!
posted by lalochezia at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
"These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor"
How about it folks: address his question.
Start with DNA and homologies between sequence, protein, pathways, processes. Look at morphology similarities in substructures of cell, embryos, etc. For chrissake* I'm not a biologist, but I know this stuff.
Ask if these are the result of 'someone' using the same toolkit or evolution? Give probabilities based on design processes we understand and optimal designs vs the contingent designs of evolution (eyes having blind spots at optic nerve meeting pt as classic example of a lack of 'design').
I'd like to see sensible questions (such as the one above) addressed in clear language to sway the people who actually think about this and to rebut people like Kent Hovind who suggest that scientists have never addressed this question.
*tee hee!
posted by lalochezia at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
No, wait, I mean Einstein's theory of gravity.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
You know, I was going to make some joke about how the "Dr." probably got his degree from the back of a comic book. But then I figured, hey, there are some people with doctorates that end up being morons.
I guess I was right to begin with...
posted by rxrfrx at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
I guess I was right to begin with...
posted by rxrfrx at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
Oh, come on. Someone will actually prove it, and then he'll claim it was just "satire" and we'll have to pony up the $250k for him.
posted by Hogshead at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by Hogshead at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
Just wait, somebody will prove it, then he'll retract his offer and claim it was satirical. Then some cartoonists will award the money for him and make him look like an idiot.
posted by S.C. at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by S.C. at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005
$10^999 to anybody who can prove that you can prove things.
posted by signal at 3:17 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by signal at 3:17 PM on October 18, 2005
"to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) . . ." that is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read with regard to this debate.
posted by punkbitch at 3:21 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by punkbitch at 3:21 PM on October 18, 2005
(Corollary) $10^999 to anybody who can prove that you cannot prove things.
posted by Rothko at 3:26 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by Rothko at 3:26 PM on October 18, 2005
"Prove beyond reasonable doubt that..." As theories can only be disproven, and never proven, nobody can ever (properly) win Dr. Hovind's competition as it's laid out. That being said, i'll give a billion to whoever proves to me any theory of your choice.
posted by wumpus at 3:26 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by wumpus at 3:26 PM on October 18, 2005
The term "cration science" makes me want to eat a club sandwich.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:28 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:28 PM on October 18, 2005
Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course.
SIlly science, tricks are for Jesus!
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:29 PM on October 18, 2005
SIlly science, tricks are for Jesus!
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:29 PM on October 18, 2005
(Corollary) $10^999 to anybody who can prove that you cannot prove things.
Statements about the real world are imposible to prove in formal logic, because all real-world facts cannot be enumerated.
Pay up.
posted by delmoi at 3:30 PM on October 18, 2005
Statements about the real world are imposible to prove in formal logic, because all real-world facts cannot be enumerated.
Pay up.
posted by delmoi at 3:30 PM on October 18, 2005
$10^999 to anybody who can prove that you can prove things.
Signal, I'll give you $0.37 US to prove I can't!
posted by Eothele at 3:30 PM on October 18, 2005
Signal, I'll give you $0.37 US to prove I can't!
posted by Eothele at 3:30 PM on October 18, 2005
Kent Hovind should be dephlogisticated.
I can't imagine what it's like to relate to someone who believes a single hyper-retranslated book holds all the answers to physical questions.
Must be some kind of folie à plusieurs (with Hovind as the Folie imposée).
I worked to a trucker who believed in emission theory (that visual perception is accomplished by rays of light emitted by the eyes) and that it was bound up with sin. That we all have 20/20 vision - that is 20 rays are sent out and 20 are sent back - but that if you looked at something sinful and kept doing it or thinking about it - less and less rays would get sent back until you were blind.
I started calling him "Snakehips" He never figured out why.
Kent Hovind seems the same brand of mooncalf.
I'm not a spagetti monster acolyte because I think there are quite solid values and moral concepts that derive a certain sophistication and reality from - for lack of a better word - mystic experiance. A grounding in the divine ground if you will.
And so deserve respect not because of this otherwise unreproducable personal experiance, but simply because moral behavior is respectable whether it's based in Kant , Kohlberg or Jesus or expressed through trucking or snake handling.
This man's tripe is not moral behavior or worth respect.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:34 PM on October 18, 2005
I can't imagine what it's like to relate to someone who believes a single hyper-retranslated book holds all the answers to physical questions.
Must be some kind of folie à plusieurs (with Hovind as the Folie imposée).
I worked to a trucker who believed in emission theory (that visual perception is accomplished by rays of light emitted by the eyes) and that it was bound up with sin. That we all have 20/20 vision - that is 20 rays are sent out and 20 are sent back - but that if you looked at something sinful and kept doing it or thinking about it - less and less rays would get sent back until you were blind.
I started calling him "Snakehips" He never figured out why.
Kent Hovind seems the same brand of mooncalf.
I'm not a spagetti monster acolyte because I think there are quite solid values and moral concepts that derive a certain sophistication and reality from - for lack of a better word - mystic experiance. A grounding in the divine ground if you will.
And so deserve respect not because of this otherwise unreproducable personal experiance, but simply because moral behavior is respectable whether it's based in Kant , Kohlberg or Jesus or expressed through trucking or snake handling.
This man's tripe is not moral behavior or worth respect.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:34 PM on October 18, 2005
Statements about the real world are imposible to prove in formal logic, because all real-world facts cannot be enumerated.
Pay up.
posted by delmoi at 6:30 PM EST on October 18 [!]
I'll give you a buck to read Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem again. Statements are neither provably true nor provably false, therefore my statement is really the second half of signal's.
posted by Rothko at 3:35 PM on October 18, 2005
Pay up.
posted by delmoi at 6:30 PM EST on October 18 [!]
I'll give you a buck to read Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem again. Statements are neither provably true nor provably false, therefore my statement is really the second half of signal's.
posted by Rothko at 3:35 PM on October 18, 2005
Worked WITH a trucker. frikking work computer. I retyped that twice.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:36 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 3:36 PM on October 18, 2005
rxrfrx : science is about disproving false things, not proving true things
Would you mind explaining that, please?
posted by recurve at 3:36 PM on October 18, 2005
Would you mind explaining that, please?
posted by recurve at 3:36 PM on October 18, 2005
I'm giving $5 to anyone who can prove this is not the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
posted by funambulist at 3:37 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by funambulist at 3:37 PM on October 18, 2005
Smedlyman - wasn't Aristotle's theory of gravity (teleometry) essentially that things go where they're supposed to?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:38 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:38 PM on October 18, 2005
A shiny new quarter to anyone who can disprove the nonexistence of intelligent life on mefi.
As theories can only be disproven, and never proven
Bingo - you can't prove a lot of things but you can assert with a high degree of confidence.
Mr Hovind might more credibly ask for answers to his real issues, such as: where does 'Science' say matter came from.
posted by scheptech at 3:39 PM on October 18, 2005
As theories can only be disproven, and never proven
Bingo - you can't prove a lot of things but you can assert with a high degree of confidence.
Mr Hovind might more credibly ask for answers to his real issues, such as: where does 'Science' say matter came from.
posted by scheptech at 3:39 PM on October 18, 2005
$5000 if you can convince me I should give you $5000.
posted by musicinmybrain at 3:39 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by musicinmybrain at 3:39 PM on October 18, 2005
rxrfrx : science is about disproving false things, not proving true things
Would you mind explaining that, please?
posted by recurve at 6:36 PM EST on October 18 [!]
rxrfrx may be referring partially to Karl Popper's idea of evolutionary epistemology.
posted by Rothko at 3:42 PM on October 18, 2005
Would you mind explaining that, please?
posted by recurve at 6:36 PM EST on October 18 [!]
rxrfrx may be referring partially to Karl Popper's idea of evolutionary epistemology.
posted by Rothko at 3:42 PM on October 18, 2005
It's a reward for proving his misrepesented and distorted idea of what he thinks evolution is.. whats more he also cheats by throwing physical cosmology into the mix (i.e. what does "Planets and stars formed from space dust" have to do with it?)
i.e. he is rigging the contest by setting the rules - his concept of evolution is a straw man
posted by zog at 3:43 PM on October 18, 2005
i.e. he is rigging the contest by setting the rules - his concept of evolution is a straw man
posted by zog at 3:43 PM on October 18, 2005
Funny you say that, 'cause it's been argued that Big Bang theory (which replaced the formerly preferred eternal unchanging universe model) was actually the product of a creationist plot in the first place...
Indeed, the theory was conceived by a Belgian priest/scholar named George Lemaître in the 1920s. The term "big bang" was created by Fred Hoyle, who was mocking the idea that the universe would suddenly expand.
A million lira to the person who can prove that on the 8th day, God created tacos.
posted by I Love Tacos at 3:49 PM on October 18, 2005
Indeed, the theory was conceived by a Belgian priest/scholar named George Lemaître in the 1920s. The term "big bang" was created by Fred Hoyle, who was mocking the idea that the universe would suddenly expand.
A million lira to the person who can prove that on the 8th day, God created tacos.
posted by I Love Tacos at 3:49 PM on October 18, 2005
Re: Smedleyman's "emission sin vision" guy:
Smedleyman, you meet much cooler kooks than I ever have.
musicinmybrain : "$5000 if you can convince me I should give you $5000."
In my opinion, this is the best of the bunch.
posted by Bugbread at 3:51 PM on October 18, 2005
Smedleyman, you meet much cooler kooks than I ever have.
musicinmybrain : "$5000 if you can convince me I should give you $5000."
In my opinion, this is the best of the bunch.
posted by Bugbread at 3:51 PM on October 18, 2005
I know this man. He is the reason I am an atheist today.
In the mid-90's he came to my small Christian school outside of Albany, GA as a guest lecturer courtesy of Sherwood Baptist Church - renowned as a major church in the community that encouraged it's member to come forth and burn their secular CD's.
Anyways. He came. For a week. The first part of the week was about evolution. I was young with a nascent and very curious mind. He was confident and had all the answers. I bought up everything. So the first few days he disproved evolution.
Wow, I thought, it's all a big fucking lie. Everything I thought I knew was wrong.
Then Wednesday afternoon in the lecture series he began his talk of the New World Order. He went on about the Masons, GPS, and bar codes being the mark of the beast. By Friday I was convinced that there were concentration camps for Christians already built at Eglin Air Force Base for anyone not willing to convert to the NWO's religion - Catholicism, of course.
I held onto this world view and theology for at least another year before it started cracking. It was such a heavy intellectual burden that it eventually collapsed on top of me. I was an atheist for the next three years thereafter.
My only wish for him that he know that he, and he alone, caused me to leave Christianity in the dust.
posted by trinarian at 3:53 PM on October 18, 2005 [1 favorite]
In the mid-90's he came to my small Christian school outside of Albany, GA as a guest lecturer courtesy of Sherwood Baptist Church - renowned as a major church in the community that encouraged it's member to come forth and burn their secular CD's.
Anyways. He came. For a week. The first part of the week was about evolution. I was young with a nascent and very curious mind. He was confident and had all the answers. I bought up everything. So the first few days he disproved evolution.
Wow, I thought, it's all a big fucking lie. Everything I thought I knew was wrong.
Then Wednesday afternoon in the lecture series he began his talk of the New World Order. He went on about the Masons, GPS, and bar codes being the mark of the beast. By Friday I was convinced that there were concentration camps for Christians already built at Eglin Air Force Base for anyone not willing to convert to the NWO's religion - Catholicism, of course.
I held onto this world view and theology for at least another year before it started cracking. It was such a heavy intellectual burden that it eventually collapsed on top of me. I was an atheist for the next three years thereafter.
My only wish for him that he know that he, and he alone, caused me to leave Christianity in the dust.
posted by trinarian at 3:53 PM on October 18, 2005 [1 favorite]
1. Create utter farce of a competition. Set proof bar so high it might as well be in outer space.
2. ?????
3. Profit!!!
Does anyone really believe you'd even sniff a quarter million bucks from this guy if you proved evolution? Nah, he's a two legged weasel who'd just change the proof requirements so that you just barely missed making it.
trinarian, I wonder how many more kids were just like you. Believers at first and then slowly realizing that its all a complete and utter load of bullshit.
posted by fenriq at 3:59 PM on October 18, 2005
2. ?????
3. Profit!!!
Does anyone really believe you'd even sniff a quarter million bucks from this guy if you proved evolution? Nah, he's a two legged weasel who'd just change the proof requirements so that you just barely missed making it.
trinarian, I wonder how many more kids were just like you. Believers at first and then slowly realizing that its all a complete and utter load of bullshit.
posted by fenriq at 3:59 PM on October 18, 2005
And I just got to this bit....
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
Umm, I'm starting to think he's not really interested in proof of evolution.
I like that he calls evolution a silly religion. That's just adorable.
posted by fenriq at 4:02 PM on October 18, 2005
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
Umm, I'm starting to think he's not really interested in proof of evolution.
I like that he calls evolution a silly religion. That's just adorable.
posted by fenriq at 4:02 PM on October 18, 2005
Let's just not believe in anything and leave it at that.
posted by j-urb at 4:03 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by j-urb at 4:03 PM on October 18, 2005
A shiny quarter to anyone who can disprove the existence of quarters (particularly shiny ones).
Would these folks get any airtime if their critics didn't give it to them?
posted by Eideteker at 4:05 PM on October 18, 2005
Would these folks get any airtime if their critics didn't give it to them?
posted by Eideteker at 4:05 PM on October 18, 2005
Kent Hovind is a huge raving asshole. I've seen him give a speech before and he has no conceivable rational grasp of reality.
posted by baphomet at 4:05 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by baphomet at 4:05 PM on October 18, 2005
“Smedlyman - wasn't Aristotle's theory of gravity (teleometry) essentially that things go where they're supposed to?”
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:38 PM PST on October 18 [!]
All bodies move towards their natural place, yup. Undone by Galileo’s work since why would stuff then fall at the same rates?
Similar to the theory of universals. Stuff wants to be with other stuff like it.
"He is the reason I am an atheist today."
posted by trinarian at 3:53 PM PST on October 18 [!]
That's a pretty damning charge. Wow. It takes a major league asshole to strip someone of their faith.
Although I suppose people like Hovind are why I have such a superiority complex. I mean if he (and followers) can so much as feed themselves, why I am not simply flooded with people sending me cash I don't know.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:11 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:38 PM PST on October 18 [!]
All bodies move towards their natural place, yup. Undone by Galileo’s work since why would stuff then fall at the same rates?
Similar to the theory of universals. Stuff wants to be with other stuff like it.
"He is the reason I am an atheist today."
posted by trinarian at 3:53 PM PST on October 18 [!]
That's a pretty damning charge. Wow. It takes a major league asshole to strip someone of their faith.
Although I suppose people like Hovind are why I have such a superiority complex. I mean if he (and followers) can so much as feed themselves, why I am not simply flooded with people sending me cash I don't know.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:11 PM on October 18, 2005
delmoi writes 'Statements about the real world are imposible to prove in formal logic, because all real-world facts cannot be enumerated.
Pay up.'
It was obviously satire. Now go away before I sue you.
posted by signal at 4:18 PM on October 18, 2005
Pay up.'
It was obviously satire. Now go away before I sue you.
posted by signal at 4:18 PM on October 18, 2005
This is kind of a sidetrack, but...
There has to be some baggage involved with not accepting evolution as a basis for biological development. That is, if you reject evolution, then you can't possibly accept that "X" is real because "X" is derived from principles of evolution. Are there any patently obvious things that everyone accepts as true, that would demonstrate that the whole ID set is hypocritical?
posted by underdog at 4:19 PM on October 18, 2005
There has to be some baggage involved with not accepting evolution as a basis for biological development. That is, if you reject evolution, then you can't possibly accept that "X" is real because "X" is derived from principles of evolution. Are there any patently obvious things that everyone accepts as true, that would demonstrate that the whole ID set is hypocritical?
posted by underdog at 4:19 PM on October 18, 2005
Max Plank, as quoted by Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962): "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
posted by bardic at 4:20 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by bardic at 4:20 PM on October 18, 2005
trinarian--awsome story.
I think it's good that there is so much questioning of evolution in particular and science in general. I'm not sure what it will mean to our society, but I think that, as we respond to these arguments against science, we are all understanding more clearly what science can and can't do.
posted by recurve at 4:23 PM on October 18, 2005
I think it's good that there is so much questioning of evolution in particular and science in general. I'm not sure what it will mean to our society, but I think that, as we respond to these arguments against science, we are all understanding more clearly what science can and can't do.
posted by recurve at 4:23 PM on October 18, 2005
Hey I am offering $500,000 to anyone who can "prove" creationism is true.
Rule 1. You can not point to the bible.
Rule 2....
Actually, you won't find anything at all about creationism in the Bible. Just the first line in Genesis that everyone knows already: "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth..." That's it, no "man walked with the dinosaurs" and no "the earth is 4,000 years old"
Creationism seem to have gotten its start in the 19th century, essentially just a movment refuting Darwin's theories. Some lone minister/geologist (whose name eludes me, I read about him in Bill Bryson's teriffic "A Short History of Nearly Everything") from Britian about that time came up with the 4,000 year old idea. Around 100 years ago only, and certainly not in the Bible.
So there's a lesson in all of this: if you are in an actual debate with an acutal creationist, first thing first is to point this out. Ask him/her to point in the Bible where it says the Earth is 4,000 years old. He won't be able to.
Creationism scientists always seem more busy at attacking evolution theory than strengthening creation theory.
posted by zardoz at 4:26 PM on October 18, 2005
Rule 1. You can not point to the bible.
Rule 2....
Actually, you won't find anything at all about creationism in the Bible. Just the first line in Genesis that everyone knows already: "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth..." That's it, no "man walked with the dinosaurs" and no "the earth is 4,000 years old"
Creationism seem to have gotten its start in the 19th century, essentially just a movment refuting Darwin's theories. Some lone minister/geologist (whose name eludes me, I read about him in Bill Bryson's teriffic "A Short History of Nearly Everything") from Britian about that time came up with the 4,000 year old idea. Around 100 years ago only, and certainly not in the Bible.
So there's a lesson in all of this: if you are in an actual debate with an acutal creationist, first thing first is to point this out. Ask him/her to point in the Bible where it says the Earth is 4,000 years old. He won't be able to.
Creationism scientists always seem more busy at attacking evolution theory than strengthening creation theory.
posted by zardoz at 4:26 PM on October 18, 2005
"Proof of natural selection. (from the link)
'Tait was videotaping the episode when the man received internal injuries that led to his death.' "
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:24 PM PST on October 18 [!]
Waitaminute, the guy was having sex with a horse and he was the bottom!!?!?
posted by Smedleyman at 4:32 PM on October 18, 2005
'Tait was videotaping the episode when the man received internal injuries that led to his death.' "
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:24 PM PST on October 18 [!]
Waitaminute, the guy was having sex with a horse and he was the bottom!!?!?
posted by Smedleyman at 4:32 PM on October 18, 2005
Hypnerotomachia found the winner. I vote they share the prize.
posted by funambulist at 4:41 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by funambulist at 4:41 PM on October 18, 2005
I think the more interesting question is whether "life" is some sort of attribute of DNA, or whether huge, complex systems such as the blogosphere, can be considered alive and, of course, evolving.
posted by ticula at 4:49 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by ticula at 4:49 PM on October 18, 2005
signal : "It was obviously satire. Now go away before I sue you."
Hogshead : "Oh, come on. Someone will actually prove it, and then he'll claim it was just 'satire' and we'll have to pony up the $250k for him."
S.C. "Just wait, somebody will prove it, then he'll retract his offer and claim it was satirical. Then some cartoonists will award the money for him and make him look like an idiot."
All those folks who are unaware of the Jack Thompson / PA thing are probably mighty confused right now.
posted by Bugbread at 4:50 PM on October 18, 2005
Hogshead : "Oh, come on. Someone will actually prove it, and then he'll claim it was just 'satire' and we'll have to pony up the $250k for him."
S.C. "Just wait, somebody will prove it, then he'll retract his offer and claim it was satirical. Then some cartoonists will award the money for him and make him look like an idiot."
All those folks who are unaware of the Jack Thompson / PA thing are probably mighty confused right now.
posted by Bugbread at 4:50 PM on October 18, 2005
InfidelGuy has quite a bit of media of Mr. Hovind. Its interesting...you can almost hear the delusion, and the Ali G clip is definitely worth a look.
posted by tetsuo at 4:56 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by tetsuo at 4:56 PM on October 18, 2005
recurve: Briefly, science is about perpetually revising our theories of how things work, such that the theories are always the best available to us at any given time, right? The act of gathering empirical evidence and using it to refine our theories is an act of disproving old, wrong theories (or parts of theories).
I'm trying to get at the idea that in science we aren't really METAPHYSICALLY PROVING things "beyond a reasonable doubt" as much as we're creating reasonable hypotheses and editing/deleting them as we learn more.
It's perhaps most evident in an experiment where one does a statistical analysis to arrive at a conclusion; one starts with a null hypothesis that is then disproven to reach the conclusion. Saying that "evolution explains the origin of humans" is really shorthand for "evolution doesn't not explain the origin of humans better than other possibilities."
posted by rxrfrx at 5:16 PM on October 18, 2005
I'm trying to get at the idea that in science we aren't really METAPHYSICALLY PROVING things "beyond a reasonable doubt" as much as we're creating reasonable hypotheses and editing/deleting them as we learn more.
It's perhaps most evident in an experiment where one does a statistical analysis to arrive at a conclusion; one starts with a null hypothesis that is then disproven to reach the conclusion. Saying that "evolution explains the origin of humans" is really shorthand for "evolution doesn't not explain the origin of humans better than other possibilities."
posted by rxrfrx at 5:16 PM on October 18, 2005
I once got into an argument with a guy about evolution, how it can't be proven, etc... He didn't seem to understand my point: you prove theorems, not theories; with theories, you only demonstrate their usefulness and/or show that they are flawed.
A bit later, he was ranting against homosexuals. I offered him $1 million straight up to prove to me he wasn't gay. He left at that point, without the million (of course, so did I).
posted by dsword at 5:19 PM on October 18, 2005
A bit later, he was ranting against homosexuals. I offered him $1 million straight up to prove to me he wasn't gay. He left at that point, without the million (of course, so did I).
posted by dsword at 5:19 PM on October 18, 2005
Infinity dollars to whoever can prove they are not out to get me.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:41 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by Krrrlson at 5:41 PM on October 18, 2005
There is a specific point in the New Testament where the Devil takes Jesus out into the desert to test him. He basically says: "Prove to me you're Jesus. Go ahead, do a miracle, right now." And Jesus just stares him down all hardcore and goes, "No."
What's funny is that this guy (admittedly on the fringe of Christianity) would probably be the one leading the charge when Jesus came (comes?) back asking him to "prove he's Jesus." All this talk about faith, but where is theirs? Put your money where your mouth is, and put your mouth where your faith is. Anything less is just more rhetoric.
Bad Religion's "I Want to Conquer the World" just came on... apropros!
posted by Eideteker at 5:48 PM on October 18, 2005
What's funny is that this guy (admittedly on the fringe of Christianity) would probably be the one leading the charge when Jesus came (comes?) back asking him to "prove he's Jesus." All this talk about faith, but where is theirs? Put your money where your mouth is, and put your mouth where your faith is. Anything less is just more rhetoric.
Bad Religion's "I Want to Conquer the World" just came on... apropros!
posted by Eideteker at 5:48 PM on October 18, 2005
While he's at it: add Earth not being the center of the universe while the sun and planets rotate around it for an extra Jackson.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 5:54 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 5:54 PM on October 18, 2005
Dear Dr. Hovind,
Happy birthday to you
you belong in a zoo
you look like a monkey
and act like one too
I WIN!
posted by tspae at 6:20 PM on October 18, 2005
Happy birthday to you
you belong in a zoo
you look like a monkey
and act like one too
I WIN!
posted by tspae at 6:20 PM on October 18, 2005
This guy must know that a positive proof isn't possible. He's trying to convince people who don't realize that to believe that evolution is false. He's seems to be addressing the science community, asking for "proof" and seeming dumb, but he's actually appealling to the creationists who read this and think "He must be right!"
posted by easternblot at 7:46 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by easternblot at 7:46 PM on October 18, 2005
My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Well, no, actually, but that statement demonstrates that you're a total fucking moron who hasn't even the most elementary understanding of logic. Well done.
posted by Decani at 7:47 PM on October 18, 2005
Well, no, actually, but that statement demonstrates that you're a total fucking moron who hasn't even the most elementary understanding of logic. Well done.
posted by Decani at 7:47 PM on October 18, 2005
" but that if you looked at something sinful and kept doing it or thinking about it - less and less rays would get sent back until you were blind."
You'd expect there would be a lot more blind people around.
posted by bat at 7:56 PM on October 18, 2005
You'd expect there would be a lot more blind people around.
posted by bat at 7:56 PM on October 18, 2005
Old news. Its already been done:
Schluter, D. 1994. Experimental evidence that competition promotes divergence in adaptive radiation. Science 266:798-801.
Its pretty clear and compelling evidence.
posted by hardcoreUFO at 8:38 PM on October 18, 2005
Schluter, D. 1994. Experimental evidence that competition promotes divergence in adaptive radiation. Science 266:798-801.
Its pretty clear and compelling evidence.
posted by hardcoreUFO at 8:38 PM on October 18, 2005
Eideteker wrote: Put your money where your mouth is, and put your mouth where your faith is.
Have any science organizations offered money for a convincing demonstration that evolution is false, or even for a convincing demonstration that creationism is at all useful in a predictive sense?
The fact that I'd be about as confident making this offer as making the one Hovind makes I guess speaks to my faith. I of course say, about, because I understand quite well that, indeed these are merely theories (not in the perjorative sense of the term "merely theories").
posted by dsword at 8:44 PM on October 18, 2005
Have any science organizations offered money for a convincing demonstration that evolution is false, or even for a convincing demonstration that creationism is at all useful in a predictive sense?
The fact that I'd be about as confident making this offer as making the one Hovind makes I guess speaks to my faith. I of course say, about, because I understand quite well that, indeed these are merely theories (not in the perjorative sense of the term "merely theories").
posted by dsword at 8:44 PM on October 18, 2005
err... confident in making an offer for the first of these demonstrations... for the second, well, that's pretty damn obvious.
Also, about should be in quotes, like this, "about." Damn it all.
posted by dsword at 8:45 PM on October 18, 2005
Also, about should be in quotes, like this, "about." Damn it all.
posted by dsword at 8:45 PM on October 18, 2005
Err.. I seem to have misread my first comment, and then posted a correction. Ignore the secon, except for the thing about the "about." And really, damn it all.
posted by dsword at 8:53 PM on October 18, 2005
posted by dsword at 8:53 PM on October 18, 2005
What's funny is that this guy (admittedly on the fringe of Christianity) would probably be the one leading the charge when Jesus came (comes?) back asking him to "prove he's Jesus." All this talk about faith, but where is theirs? Put your money where your mouth is, and put your mouth where your faith is.
Indeed... just imagine what this guy would pay to felate the Jesus Christ. /goingtohell
posted by Stauf at 8:57 PM on October 18, 2005
Indeed... just imagine what this guy would pay to felate the Jesus Christ. /goingtohell
posted by Stauf at 8:57 PM on October 18, 2005
" but that if you looked at something sinful and kept doing it or thinking about it - less and less rays would get sent back until you were blind."
You'd expect there would be a lot more blind people around.
*wonders how many members of MeFi wear glasses*
posted by dg at 8:58 PM on October 18, 2005
You'd expect there would be a lot more blind people around.
*wonders how many members of MeFi wear glasses*
posted by dg at 8:58 PM on October 18, 2005
On the bandwagon...
I'll offer N dollars (where N is an arbitrarily large, nonnegative real number) to anyone who can prove to me that they aren't interested in my money.
posted by ChrisR at 11:54 PM on October 18, 2005
I'll offer N dollars (where N is an arbitrarily large, nonnegative real number) to anyone who can prove to me that they aren't interested in my money.
posted by ChrisR at 11:54 PM on October 18, 2005
Dr. Hovind served as an educator for many years teaching Biology, Anatomy, Physical Science, Mathematics, Earth Science, and many other sciences. Dr. Hovind has debated the Creation and Evolution controversy over 90 times all over the world, in many large Universities, and on thousands of radio talk shows.
Hmm...I think he might want to brush up on his Mathematics. Also, what's with the random capitalization?
posted by dwordle at 12:05 AM on October 19, 2005
Hmm...I think he might want to brush up on his Mathematics. Also, what's with the random capitalization?
posted by dwordle at 12:05 AM on October 19, 2005
In 1870, the co-discoverer of evolution by natural selection, A. R. Wallace, set out to win 500 pounds from John Hampden, a flat earth proponent. The prize was to be awarded to an acceptable proof of the curvature of the earth.
The actual experiment is a good example of careful design, and the technicalities raised by Hampden a good example of the contortions a denialist will go through to avoid admitting defeat.
Wallace took a six mile straight section of the Bedford Canal, and placed at one end, a flag a fixed height from the water surface. At the other end a telescope attached to a spirit level, at the same height from the water surface, and in the middle, another flag at the same height.
Now, if the earth were flat, the flags would align with the view through the telescope, and you would see the two flags in the crosshair of the spirit level. Curvature of the surface of the water would cause the flags and the telescope to be misaligned, so that the near flag would be below the spirit level crosshairs, and the further flag lower still.
John Hampden claimed to have seen two level flags, while the official umpire and Wallace did not. Hampden did not have to pay the reward on a technicality (I think something to do with being an unauthorised wager?) but harrassed Wallace for a further fifteen years, attacking him at every oppertunity.
William Carpenter, Hampden's referee in the experiment wrote a report critical of Wallace's experiment design, which Wallace refuted. Carpenter miscontrued the meaning of level and straight, ignored that the telescope was the third point needed for colinearaity, objecting that the telescope was not level, questioning the method of using a spirit level, calling a lesser depression below level as a rise, and mathematical trickery similar to the missing dollar problem.
So, no matter how watertight your proof, Hovind will dispute the need to pay you, as all denialists will when challenged with reality. You might also end up being slandered in every lecture he gives as an example of the corruption at the heart of the evil-lutionist religion.
Good luck!
posted by Basalisk at 12:27 AM on October 19, 2005
The actual experiment is a good example of careful design, and the technicalities raised by Hampden a good example of the contortions a denialist will go through to avoid admitting defeat.
Wallace took a six mile straight section of the Bedford Canal, and placed at one end, a flag a fixed height from the water surface. At the other end a telescope attached to a spirit level, at the same height from the water surface, and in the middle, another flag at the same height.
Now, if the earth were flat, the flags would align with the view through the telescope, and you would see the two flags in the crosshair of the spirit level. Curvature of the surface of the water would cause the flags and the telescope to be misaligned, so that the near flag would be below the spirit level crosshairs, and the further flag lower still.
John Hampden claimed to have seen two level flags, while the official umpire and Wallace did not. Hampden did not have to pay the reward on a technicality (I think something to do with being an unauthorised wager?) but harrassed Wallace for a further fifteen years, attacking him at every oppertunity.
William Carpenter, Hampden's referee in the experiment wrote a report critical of Wallace's experiment design, which Wallace refuted. Carpenter miscontrued the meaning of level and straight, ignored that the telescope was the third point needed for colinearaity, objecting that the telescope was not level, questioning the method of using a spirit level, calling a lesser depression below level as a rise, and mathematical trickery similar to the missing dollar problem.
So, no matter how watertight your proof, Hovind will dispute the need to pay you, as all denialists will when challenged with reality. You might also end up being slandered in every lecture he gives as an example of the corruption at the heart of the evil-lutionist religion.
Good luck!
posted by Basalisk at 12:27 AM on October 19, 2005
Put me in the "it's pointless to argue with these people" camp. Accepting a challenge like this is a fools game, a trap set up by a biased person who thinks he is an authority in a position to judge. It is a debating technique, a sideshow, meant to distract people from thinking critically and all about getting this man's misguided beliefs publicized.
Science is a way of gaining knowledge about the world. It provides explanations, checks these explanations by making predictions that can be tested, and therefore furthers our knowledge of how the world works. The theory of evolution passes these tests, and so it is a science.
Creationism, or Intelligent Design if you want to call it that, doesn't do any of these things, therefore it is not a science. It explains nothing -- to say that God, or some other Intelligent Designer, made everything, is not an explanation. You can make no testable predictions with it. It give us absolutely no new knowledge about the world or how it works.
posted by moonbiter at 1:02 AM on October 19, 2005
Science is a way of gaining knowledge about the world. It provides explanations, checks these explanations by making predictions that can be tested, and therefore furthers our knowledge of how the world works. The theory of evolution passes these tests, and so it is a science.
Creationism, or Intelligent Design if you want to call it that, doesn't do any of these things, therefore it is not a science. It explains nothing -- to say that God, or some other Intelligent Designer, made everything, is not an explanation. You can make no testable predictions with it. It give us absolutely no new knowledge about the world or how it works.
posted by moonbiter at 1:02 AM on October 19, 2005
Can't we just wait till this guy cuts himself then send him a sample of MRSA?
posted by biffa at 2:45 AM on October 19, 2005
posted by biffa at 2:45 AM on October 19, 2005
Um, surley "Natural Selection" is the theory and "Evolution" is the observed phenomena (in the form of fossil records, etc) it explains?
posted by Artw at 3:34 AM on October 19, 2005
posted by Artw at 3:34 AM on October 19, 2005
This is also almost exactly the "show me proof" wager that James Randi is doing. Randi is offering $100,000 for proof of a supernatural event. But the criteria basically boils down to Randi saying, "...nah, I'm not impressed. Next!"
posted by zardoz at 4:17 AM on October 19, 2005
posted by zardoz at 4:17 AM on October 19, 2005
Funny, he probably learned this from James Randi's similiar bounty. Randi is a skeptic and offers a huge bounty to anyone who can prove ESP or anything paranormal exists. Critics say his criteria is biased, others say it proves all paranormal claims are bunk. Regardless, I think the "big bounty" school of resolving differences is a bunch of crap and anyone engaging in it is being highly disingenious if not outright fraudulant.
posted by skallas at 8:29 PM PST on October 18
Actually, if you really had paranormal abilities, Randi's challenge would be a breeze to win. Let's say that you have the power to detect gold with a dowsing rod, a common claim. The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) representives and you would work together to find a proper testing protocol; in this case, it would be something like "we put 10g of gold underneath one of these 10 coffee cans, detect it." You would go through the test a couple times knowing where the gold is first as a baseline, to make sure there's no psychic or material interference. Once you are satisfied that your powers are working as intended, the gold would be put under a randomly selected coffee can. You are brought back in and asked to detect its location. Once you have done this, say, ten times, if you have done significantly better than chance - probably 8 to 10 successes out of 10, depending on the protocol you and they agreed upon, congratulations! You have passed the preliminary test and and are now the first successful entrant qualified for the big one: the million dollar test!
The million dollar test, the final, would have the same protocol as the first, only with more cameras, recording devices, and spectators. It would be an extremely big deal. And all you have to do in this case is detect the gold just like you did the first time in accordance with the rules that you and they set up.
Just do what you say you can do and you are a million dollars richer, world-famous, and as a bonus, you'd shake up Randi (and me) so badly that we'd probably shut up our big fat skeptical mouths for the rest of our lives.
No tricks, no get-out-of-jail-free cards, no excuses, no negative proofs or explanations needed. Just demonstrate your powers in a controlled environment, and you win.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:34 AM on October 19, 2005
posted by skallas at 8:29 PM PST on October 18
Actually, if you really had paranormal abilities, Randi's challenge would be a breeze to win. Let's say that you have the power to detect gold with a dowsing rod, a common claim. The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) representives and you would work together to find a proper testing protocol; in this case, it would be something like "we put 10g of gold underneath one of these 10 coffee cans, detect it." You would go through the test a couple times knowing where the gold is first as a baseline, to make sure there's no psychic or material interference. Once you are satisfied that your powers are working as intended, the gold would be put under a randomly selected coffee can. You are brought back in and asked to detect its location. Once you have done this, say, ten times, if you have done significantly better than chance - probably 8 to 10 successes out of 10, depending on the protocol you and they agreed upon, congratulations! You have passed the preliminary test and and are now the first successful entrant qualified for the big one: the million dollar test!
The million dollar test, the final, would have the same protocol as the first, only with more cameras, recording devices, and spectators. It would be an extremely big deal. And all you have to do in this case is detect the gold just like you did the first time in accordance with the rules that you and they set up.
Just do what you say you can do and you are a million dollars richer, world-famous, and as a bonus, you'd shake up Randi (and me) so badly that we'd probably shut up our big fat skeptical mouths for the rest of our lives.
No tricks, no get-out-of-jail-free cards, no excuses, no negative proofs or explanations needed. Just demonstrate your powers in a controlled environment, and you win.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:34 AM on October 19, 2005
Optimus -
1) I don't believe there have been any successful psychic/paranormal experiments.
2) The big reason Randi's wager (or groups' nervousness about taking him up on it) isn't proof-positive that their experiments are bogus is linked to how little we know about the paranormal. We don't even know if it exists at all! There are many examples in 'real' science of experiments whose results were impacted from at-that-time unknown variables. Someone would do an experiment, get result A, someone would repeat it and get result B. Neither experiment was done 'wrong', but there was an unknown variable used in one or the other that impacts results.
The same could easily occur with the paranormal - it's an area we know so little about that we don't even think it exists! If Paranormal Group Alpha does a successful experiment, even if it is legit, they may not be able to repeat it in Randi's "controlled environment" as they may not know what other elements impact the results (chemicals in the air, warm vibes from the experimenters, favourite food of the participants, presence of nearby power-lines...). This isn't to say that Randi's wager is a bad idea (it's a great one!), but just that even with his apparently transparent process, he might "debunk" a legit experiment.
posted by Marquis at 5:30 AM on October 19, 2005
1) I don't believe there have been any successful psychic/paranormal experiments.
2) The big reason Randi's wager (or groups' nervousness about taking him up on it) isn't proof-positive that their experiments are bogus is linked to how little we know about the paranormal. We don't even know if it exists at all! There are many examples in 'real' science of experiments whose results were impacted from at-that-time unknown variables. Someone would do an experiment, get result A, someone would repeat it and get result B. Neither experiment was done 'wrong', but there was an unknown variable used in one or the other that impacts results.
The same could easily occur with the paranormal - it's an area we know so little about that we don't even think it exists! If Paranormal Group Alpha does a successful experiment, even if it is legit, they may not be able to repeat it in Randi's "controlled environment" as they may not know what other elements impact the results (chemicals in the air, warm vibes from the experimenters, favourite food of the participants, presence of nearby power-lines...). This isn't to say that Randi's wager is a bad idea (it's a great one!), but just that even with his apparently transparent process, he might "debunk" a legit experiment.
posted by Marquis at 5:30 AM on October 19, 2005
Oh and obviously an experiment where the conditions of success are unknown might not be described as totally "legit", but I don't think it's fraudulent.
posted by Marquis at 5:32 AM on October 19, 2005
posted by Marquis at 5:32 AM on October 19, 2005
I don't believe there have been any successful psychic/paranormal experiments.
True. It's quite difficult to demonstrate abilities that do not exist; no argument there.
If Paranormal Group Alpha does a successful experiment, even if it is legit, they may not be able to repeat it in Randi's "controlled environment" as they may not know what other elements impact the results (chemicals in the air, warm vibes from the experimenters, favourite food of the participants, presence of nearby power-lines...). This isn't to say that Randi's wager is a bad idea (it's a great one!), but just that even with his apparently transparent process, he might "debunk" a legit experiment.
It's funny that you mention that. Remember that in the protocol I outlined above, the claimant does a run-though of the test with the materials revealed to him; that is, if he claims that he can detect gold, the gold is in a) plain sight or b) otherwise clearly marked the first run-though so the claimant can determine if their abilities are working properly that day or if there is any sort of interference, physical or psychic.
In-fucking-variably, the claimant scores 10 out of 10, states that everything is working just fine, no problems whatsoever, no interference, let's get on with the test.
And then, when the material is hidden or the GOLD HERE! markers are removed, they do no better than chance. Every time. Then and only then do they say "oh well the aluminum chair in the corner messed me up." Why didn't they say that beforehand? The JREF representatives would have happily moved it.
The JREF has tested hundreds of claimants, all with a free run-through to detect and eliminate interference, according to the protocol agreed upon by all parties. It's not like the JREF puts barriers in place; in fact, they make it extraordinarily easy to win; all you have to do is what you claim you can do.
Saying that interference magically pops up the yoctosecond after the first run-though is intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, fucking stupid.
Oh and obviously an experiment where the conditions of success are unknown might not be described as totally "legit", but I don't think it's fraudulent.
What? Are you still talking about the challenge? The conditions of success are agreed upon by all participants beforehand.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:52 AM on October 19, 2005
True. It's quite difficult to demonstrate abilities that do not exist; no argument there.
If Paranormal Group Alpha does a successful experiment, even if it is legit, they may not be able to repeat it in Randi's "controlled environment" as they may not know what other elements impact the results (chemicals in the air, warm vibes from the experimenters, favourite food of the participants, presence of nearby power-lines...). This isn't to say that Randi's wager is a bad idea (it's a great one!), but just that even with his apparently transparent process, he might "debunk" a legit experiment.
It's funny that you mention that. Remember that in the protocol I outlined above, the claimant does a run-though of the test with the materials revealed to him; that is, if he claims that he can detect gold, the gold is in a) plain sight or b) otherwise clearly marked the first run-though so the claimant can determine if their abilities are working properly that day or if there is any sort of interference, physical or psychic.
In-fucking-variably, the claimant scores 10 out of 10, states that everything is working just fine, no problems whatsoever, no interference, let's get on with the test.
And then, when the material is hidden or the GOLD HERE! markers are removed, they do no better than chance. Every time. Then and only then do they say "oh well the aluminum chair in the corner messed me up." Why didn't they say that beforehand? The JREF representatives would have happily moved it.
The JREF has tested hundreds of claimants, all with a free run-through to detect and eliminate interference, according to the protocol agreed upon by all parties. It's not like the JREF puts barriers in place; in fact, they make it extraordinarily easy to win; all you have to do is what you claim you can do.
Saying that interference magically pops up the yoctosecond after the first run-though is intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, fucking stupid.
Oh and obviously an experiment where the conditions of success are unknown might not be described as totally "legit", but I don't think it's fraudulent.
What? Are you still talking about the challenge? The conditions of success are agreed upon by all participants beforehand.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:52 AM on October 19, 2005
Optimus -
A clarification - by "conditions of success" I don't "what results will be considered a success", but rather, "under what conditions a set of given results occur".
I'm saying that an experiment may not be replicable by the party outside of, say, their own lab, and they won't know why.
In-fucking-variably, the claimant scores 10 out of 10, states that everything is working just fine, no problems whatsoever, no interference, let's get on with the test.
I am imagining a scenario where someone has come up with certain conditions where psychic ability can be measured. Because we don't understand the phenomenon, however, we don't know all the requirements for the effect to be replicated. (Let's say, for instance, that the participants need to have eaten carrots that morning, or that the lab needs to be on the site of a murder.) Going into Randi's "controlled environment", either on the first pass, the second, or both, the experiment will fail.
This proves that the experiment's not replicable. But given a bona fide psychic effect, it also presents a scenario where that effect would be "debunked", the researcher scoffed at, their credibility shattered. All because they don't know how to replicate their experiment outside of the particular conditions in which the have successfully performed it.
A similar incident took place with tapeworms who appeared to carry over learning even after being cut in half. Nobody could replicate one lab's experiment, and it later turned out that it was because that lab wasn't cleaning out the cases after the cutting operation. Nobody had thought of that as pertinent -- but now we know a lot more about tapeworm memory and regeneration.
posted by Marquis at 6:06 AM on October 19, 2005
A clarification - by "conditions of success" I don't "what results will be considered a success", but rather, "under what conditions a set of given results occur".
I'm saying that an experiment may not be replicable by the party outside of, say, their own lab, and they won't know why.
In-fucking-variably, the claimant scores 10 out of 10, states that everything is working just fine, no problems whatsoever, no interference, let's get on with the test.
I am imagining a scenario where someone has come up with certain conditions where psychic ability can be measured. Because we don't understand the phenomenon, however, we don't know all the requirements for the effect to be replicated. (Let's say, for instance, that the participants need to have eaten carrots that morning, or that the lab needs to be on the site of a murder.) Going into Randi's "controlled environment", either on the first pass, the second, or both, the experiment will fail.
This proves that the experiment's not replicable. But given a bona fide psychic effect, it also presents a scenario where that effect would be "debunked", the researcher scoffed at, their credibility shattered. All because they don't know how to replicate their experiment outside of the particular conditions in which the have successfully performed it.
A similar incident took place with tapeworms who appeared to carry over learning even after being cut in half. Nobody could replicate one lab's experiment, and it later turned out that it was because that lab wasn't cleaning out the cases after the cutting operation. Nobody had thought of that as pertinent -- but now we know a lot more about tapeworm memory and regeneration.
posted by Marquis at 6:06 AM on October 19, 2005
(Let's say, for instance, that the participants need to have eaten carrots that morning, or that the lab needs to be on the site of a murder.) Going into Randi's "controlled environment", either on the first pass, the second, or both, the experiment will fail.
What don't you understand about the claimant's testing their powers on a "free" run-though before the actual test? If there were interference or they hadn't eaten carrots that morning or the observers hadn't eaten carrots or the testing site was wrong, or it just didn't feel like a good day for it, they have the explicit right and responsibility to say so.
But they never do. They score 100% and verify that their powers are working great.
it also presents a scenario where that effect would be "debunked", the researcher scoffed at, their credibility shattered. All because they don't know how to replicate their experiment outside of the particular conditions in which the have successfully performed it.
Claimants are rarely, if ever, researchers. Often, these people are "professionals" who charge people money for the benefit of their purported abilities. How often will a doswer say, sorry, can't take your money today; I haven't had any carrots?
I understand what you're saying about potential problems or interference. The fact of the matter is that it only takes one person with real powers to show up all those mean skeptics (and win a million dollars!) and yet so far all claimants have failed miserably.
I reiterate: if you are a real psychic, with real powers, winning that million dollars is a trivial task.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:23 AM on October 19, 2005
What don't you understand about the claimant's testing their powers on a "free" run-though before the actual test? If there were interference or they hadn't eaten carrots that morning or the observers hadn't eaten carrots or the testing site was wrong, or it just didn't feel like a good day for it, they have the explicit right and responsibility to say so.
But they never do. They score 100% and verify that their powers are working great.
it also presents a scenario where that effect would be "debunked", the researcher scoffed at, their credibility shattered. All because they don't know how to replicate their experiment outside of the particular conditions in which the have successfully performed it.
Claimants are rarely, if ever, researchers. Often, these people are "professionals" who charge people money for the benefit of their purported abilities. How often will a doswer say, sorry, can't take your money today; I haven't had any carrots?
I understand what you're saying about potential problems or interference. The fact of the matter is that it only takes one person with real powers to show up all those mean skeptics (and win a million dollars!) and yet so far all claimants have failed miserably.
I reiterate: if you are a real psychic, with real powers, winning that million dollars is a trivial task.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:23 AM on October 19, 2005
It explains nothing -- to say that God, or some other Intelligent Designer, made everything, is not an explanation. You can make no testable predictions with it. It give us absolutely no new knowledge about the world or how it works.
Duh... Living in a time close to the rapture takes away any need for "predictions". Heretic!
posted by uncle harold at 6:25 AM on October 19, 2005
Duh... Living in a time close to the rapture takes away any need for "predictions". Heretic!
posted by uncle harold at 6:25 AM on October 19, 2005
But they never do. They score 100% and verify that their powers are working great.
Again, you misunderstand. I am not suggesting that the psychics who fail Randi's test are real. Like I implied, I do not believe that there is any solid evidence of the existence of psychic/paranormal powers.
What I am saying is that there could be researchers who find themselves with a measurable psychic effect and yet fail Randi's test. This is something for scientists (or skeptics) to keep in mind with all unexpected claims: in areas we know little or nothing about, experiments can be very difficult to replicate. The crowing of skeptics might even prevent such researchers from submitting to Randi's trials as despite having found legitimate results, they are not confident that they could repeat them (for the moment) in a control environment. (Just as other scientists wouldn't be able to replicate the results.)
By pointing out these flaws in the method, I am not asserting that there is any proof of paranormal activity in the world today. The scientific method is the best tool I have. But I do think it's important to keep blind spots in mind so that we don't miss anything that is legitimate.
posted by Marquis at 6:41 AM on October 19, 2005
Again, you misunderstand. I am not suggesting that the psychics who fail Randi's test are real. Like I implied, I do not believe that there is any solid evidence of the existence of psychic/paranormal powers.
What I am saying is that there could be researchers who find themselves with a measurable psychic effect and yet fail Randi's test. This is something for scientists (or skeptics) to keep in mind with all unexpected claims: in areas we know little or nothing about, experiments can be very difficult to replicate. The crowing of skeptics might even prevent such researchers from submitting to Randi's trials as despite having found legitimate results, they are not confident that they could repeat them (for the moment) in a control environment. (Just as other scientists wouldn't be able to replicate the results.)
By pointing out these flaws in the method, I am not asserting that there is any proof of paranormal activity in the world today. The scientific method is the best tool I have. But I do think it's important to keep blind spots in mind so that we don't miss anything that is legitimate.
posted by Marquis at 6:41 AM on October 19, 2005
What I am saying is that there could be researchers who find themselves with a measurable psychic effect and yet fail Randi's test.
Yeah, well, I guess unicorns could live in a magical glen in the deepest forests of Colorado, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for a ride on one.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:40 AM on October 19, 2005
Yeah, well, I guess unicorns could live in a magical glen in the deepest forests of Colorado, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for a ride on one.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:40 AM on October 19, 2005
Your comment is true but unhelpful; that is, we know that there is a possiblity that these powers exist. However, because no one has ever been able to give even the most basic demonstration of them, it's pointless to do real research that costs real money, and it's especially pointless to spend taxpayer dollars to do so, such as the case of CIA Remote Viewing experiments. It's also pointless to even talk about Sylvia Brown and John Edward, but I guess idiots have to spend their money somewhere.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:02 AM on October 19, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:02 AM on October 19, 2005
I do believe it's pointless arguing with these people...firstly, it's too easy to win, and secondly, it's more productive attacking their arguments (the "Intelligent Designer" has created some pretty silly, inefficient, mal-adapted designs, and had to try some thing many times over to achieve the same outcome, and was also rather wasteful in the scattering of species - convergent evolution is a bitch).
But, fundamentally, evolution has been observed in action. In a number of phyla, now. And I'm talking speciation here, in higher vertebrates. There are species on the planet now that did not exist two centuries ago.
Natural selection is a simple theory that most people can grasp and accept. They just don't realise it.
(a) Do you believe that you are physically different from other people? In general, people are quite variable? Nevermind how that variation got there in the first place, we can tell you that story later.
(b) Do you believe that you share some physical similarities with close relatives? Parents? Siblings? That these similarities are passed on from generation to generation?
(c) Do you believe that some physical differences might make a creature less healthy, less likely to survive in some environments than others? How would a polar bear do in central Australia? How about an avacado tree in the antarctic?
(d) Do you believe that some types of creature are significantly different enough from other types of creature that they can't mate and produce offspring? No such thing as a cross between a cat and a dog, right?
If you answered YES to all these questions, congratulations, you believe in natural selection!
posted by Jimbob at 8:02 AM on October 19, 2005
But, fundamentally, evolution has been observed in action. In a number of phyla, now. And I'm talking speciation here, in higher vertebrates. There are species on the planet now that did not exist two centuries ago.
Natural selection is a simple theory that most people can grasp and accept. They just don't realise it.
(a) Do you believe that you are physically different from other people? In general, people are quite variable? Nevermind how that variation got there in the first place, we can tell you that story later.
(b) Do you believe that you share some physical similarities with close relatives? Parents? Siblings? That these similarities are passed on from generation to generation?
(c) Do you believe that some physical differences might make a creature less healthy, less likely to survive in some environments than others? How would a polar bear do in central Australia? How about an avacado tree in the antarctic?
(d) Do you believe that some types of creature are significantly different enough from other types of creature that they can't mate and produce offspring? No such thing as a cross between a cat and a dog, right?
If you answered YES to all these questions, congratulations, you believe in natural selection!
posted by Jimbob at 8:02 AM on October 19, 2005
"That famous scientist will give anyone 10 million dollars to prove evolution and no one has done it! What does that tell you?" Expect this from the usual suspects this thanksgiving dinner.
Yeah that would be the scenerio at our house if I was fool enough to let the topic of religion rear its ugly head. But I'm a better hostess than that. Also I know enough to admit defeat because here is how the "debate" about creation goes:
The Bible is completely true in every detail.
The Bible says (X) about creation.
Therefore: It must be true because to doubt the Bible in any matter is to doubt that God exists.
God Exists, therefore: The Bible is completely true in every detail.
Who can argue with logic like this?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:09 AM on October 19, 2005
Yeah that would be the scenerio at our house if I was fool enough to let the topic of religion rear its ugly head. But I'm a better hostess than that. Also I know enough to admit defeat because here is how the "debate" about creation goes:
The Bible is completely true in every detail.
The Bible says (X) about creation.
Therefore: It must be true because to doubt the Bible in any matter is to doubt that God exists.
God Exists, therefore: The Bible is completely true in every detail.
Who can argue with logic like this?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:09 AM on October 19, 2005
However, because no one has ever been able to give even the most basic demonstration of them, it's pointless to do real research that costs real money
That's where we disagree -- there have been some experiments that by scientific precedent bear further investigation.
(I do not believe Ganzfeld experiments are proof of "psi", but I do want to understand why several metastudies have found better-than-probability results, and think this is well worth investing in.)
posted by Marquis at 8:16 AM on October 19, 2005
That's where we disagree -- there have been some experiments that by scientific precedent bear further investigation.
(I do not believe Ganzfeld experiments are proof of "psi", but I do want to understand why several metastudies have found better-than-probability results, and think this is well worth investing in.)
posted by Marquis at 8:16 AM on October 19, 2005
The PEAR researchers are big fans of confirmation bias and retroactive data manipulation. Their meta-analyses are worthless.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:34 AM on October 19, 2005
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:34 AM on October 19, 2005
Marquis has a valid point about cases where both tests 1 and 2 fail. I also don't believe in the paranormal, but that doesn't make the point less valid. He also has a good point about unknown factors affecting outcomes, which intersects, rarely, with Optimus Chyme's good point about passing test 1 and failing test 2.
The first point (failing 1 and 2) is that if a psychic fails both tests 1 and 2, it will be taken as prima facie evidence of lack of paranormal power. In reality, it is not that. It is non-evidence of paranormal power. That is, it isn't a demonstration that paranormal power exists, but it's a lack of proof that it exists. To compare them with some of the examples given way above, if I fail to prove that yesterday really happened, that isn't proof that it didn't, it's just lack of proof that it did. Or if I fail to prove that evolutionary theory is correct, that isn't proof that it isn't, it's just lack of proof that it is. But, far more importantly, and perhaps the very heart of Randi's challenge, is that it is evidence that the person claiming to have the ability to perform supernatural things is unable to do what he claims he can do. It is an effort primarily to expose charlatanry, to clearly show that these folks who say they can do the supernatural are lying. It is also a decent argument against paranormality itself, but that's not its primary point, and its not what it presents the most damning evidence against.
The second point, unknown factors, is a bit more interesting to me, in that if neither the testers nor the tested know about the factors, the factors can result in weird results (like passing the first test but failing the second). To make a particularly loopy paranormal example, if you have the ability to find gold under cups, but don't realize that it is deactivated for the day by reading your newspaper with angle of your neck tilted at 17.56 degrees, then you might pass the first test on a day when your neck is angled at 18 degrees during breakfast, but fail test 2 on a day when your neck is angled at 17.56 during breakfast.
It's impossible to eliminate every possible variable with something as free-of-logic as the paranormal. After all, with a lab experiment, you can be reasonably sure to get similar results if you use identical equipment, identical temperature, identical electromagnetic background, identical air pressure, and maybe 30 or 40 more constants. With logicfree paranormal stuff, you have an infinite amount of possibilities, so the best way to eliminate them is just to put test 1 and test 2 close together chronologically.
However, like I said, this intersection of Marquis' "unidentified variable" point and Optimus' "Pass 1 Fail 2" point is so rare as to be...how did Optimus say it? "quite frankly, fucking stupid".
And Optimus Chyme's point seems pretty straightforward, so I won't go into it, other than to say that I agree.
That said, I do think that comparisons between Randi's challenge and Hovind's challenge are absolutely batshit wrong, because:
1) Randy is challenging people to do something which they say they can do (exhibit paranormal powers)
2) Hovind is challenging people to do something which they do not say they can do (provide absolute proof of evolution)
Putting the two in the same boat is absolutely wrongheaded.
posted by Bugbread at 11:01 AM on October 19, 2005
The first point (failing 1 and 2) is that if a psychic fails both tests 1 and 2, it will be taken as prima facie evidence of lack of paranormal power. In reality, it is not that. It is non-evidence of paranormal power. That is, it isn't a demonstration that paranormal power exists, but it's a lack of proof that it exists. To compare them with some of the examples given way above, if I fail to prove that yesterday really happened, that isn't proof that it didn't, it's just lack of proof that it did. Or if I fail to prove that evolutionary theory is correct, that isn't proof that it isn't, it's just lack of proof that it is. But, far more importantly, and perhaps the very heart of Randi's challenge, is that it is evidence that the person claiming to have the ability to perform supernatural things is unable to do what he claims he can do. It is an effort primarily to expose charlatanry, to clearly show that these folks who say they can do the supernatural are lying. It is also a decent argument against paranormality itself, but that's not its primary point, and its not what it presents the most damning evidence against.
The second point, unknown factors, is a bit more interesting to me, in that if neither the testers nor the tested know about the factors, the factors can result in weird results (like passing the first test but failing the second). To make a particularly loopy paranormal example, if you have the ability to find gold under cups, but don't realize that it is deactivated for the day by reading your newspaper with angle of your neck tilted at 17.56 degrees, then you might pass the first test on a day when your neck is angled at 18 degrees during breakfast, but fail test 2 on a day when your neck is angled at 17.56 during breakfast.
It's impossible to eliminate every possible variable with something as free-of-logic as the paranormal. After all, with a lab experiment, you can be reasonably sure to get similar results if you use identical equipment, identical temperature, identical electromagnetic background, identical air pressure, and maybe 30 or 40 more constants. With logicfree paranormal stuff, you have an infinite amount of possibilities, so the best way to eliminate them is just to put test 1 and test 2 close together chronologically.
However, like I said, this intersection of Marquis' "unidentified variable" point and Optimus' "Pass 1 Fail 2" point is so rare as to be...how did Optimus say it? "quite frankly, fucking stupid".
And Optimus Chyme's point seems pretty straightforward, so I won't go into it, other than to say that I agree.
That said, I do think that comparisons between Randi's challenge and Hovind's challenge are absolutely batshit wrong, because:
1) Randy is challenging people to do something which they say they can do (exhibit paranormal powers)
2) Hovind is challenging people to do something which they do not say they can do (provide absolute proof of evolution)
Putting the two in the same boat is absolutely wrongheaded.
posted by Bugbread at 11:01 AM on October 19, 2005
Have any science organizations offered money for a convincing demonstration that evolution is false, or even for a convincing demonstration that creationism is at all useful in a predictive sense?
No, and they shouldn't, because it would lend a false air of legitimacy to Hovind's offer. It would say that the science organization accepts the logic behind Hovind's offer, just not its conclusions; and the reasons Hovind's offer is not logically sound have already been covered in this thread. Perhaps most importantly, it would give ammunition to the "teach creationism in schools" folks, who would say, "See? Since there is no proof for either, evolution and special creation are equally good theories, and both should be taught in biology class."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:13 AM on October 19, 2005
No, and they shouldn't, because it would lend a false air of legitimacy to Hovind's offer. It would say that the science organization accepts the logic behind Hovind's offer, just not its conclusions; and the reasons Hovind's offer is not logically sound have already been covered in this thread. Perhaps most importantly, it would give ammunition to the "teach creationism in schools" folks, who would say, "See? Since there is no proof for either, evolution and special creation are equally good theories, and both should be taught in biology class."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:13 AM on October 19, 2005
ChrisR: "On the bandwagon...
I'll offer N dollars (where N is an arbitrarily large, nonnegative real number) to anyone who can prove to me that they aren't interested in my money."
Ok, give me your money, along with a strict legally binding document that says I must immediately turn around and surrender all of it to a charity of your choice, all in your name in order to disassociate myself from possible credit.
posted by mystyk at 11:38 AM on October 19, 2005
I'll offer N dollars (where N is an arbitrarily large, nonnegative real number) to anyone who can prove to me that they aren't interested in my money."
Ok, give me your money, along with a strict legally binding document that says I must immediately turn around and surrender all of it to a charity of your choice, all in your name in order to disassociate myself from possible credit.
posted by mystyk at 11:38 AM on October 19, 2005
Eeegh. That's clever enough that I'm going to have to play the "it was only satire" card at this point, forcing you to donate N dollars to a charity that I would have chosen in my name.
posted by ChrisR at 7:26 AM on October 20, 2005
posted by ChrisR at 7:26 AM on October 20, 2005
« Older Early New Zealand Books Online | This is alpha, baby! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pecinpah at 2:52 PM on October 18, 2005