Questions for Evolutionists, whatever an evolutionist is, from Mr Kent Hovind. I'll just go and find a biologist to tackle his attempt at disproving evolution by natural selection.

Oh wait hang on...

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

That sounds like a cosmology question Kent. The universe doesn't displace anything, and as such requires no space. The universe creates its own space, which it is still doing at an increasing rate even today.

2. Where did matter come from?

The matter condensed out of the energy of the Big Bang, after inflation the matter in the universe was a mix of quarks and gluons. At 1.0 × 10^-6 seconds after the Big Bang they formed protons and neutrons.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

The laws of nature are inherit to the universe, they were created at the Big Bang.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

I don't accept the premise that matter is perfectly organised.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

Actually it was the energy of the Big Bang that kept atoms from forming, the temperature and density of the universe had to decrease before quarks and gluons could form baryons (protons and neutrons). They were literally too energetic whizzing around too fast for the nuclear forces to have any impact.

More of his silly questions to come at a later date, maybe he could get onto biology.

Well I stumbled across my old friend, TheDailyCreationism. On a new website, again claiming to do daily updates but failing to do regular posts. Quite disappointing I have to say as I'd love to read a creationist blog that is well, up to date with fresh arguments not those stale things from a hundred years ago.

Anyway one of the posts on this blog featured Mr Kent Hovind's $250,000 offer. He presents it like James Randi presents the $1 million paranormal challenge, prove evolution and you get $250,000. Simple right?

Wrong. Look how this whack job defines evolution.

1) Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2) Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3) Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4) Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5) Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

So yes only the fifth one has anything to do with evolution. This is how it falls down and becomes improvable:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution [...] is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.

Hmmmmm OK, oh wait, there's more, now he redefines evolution to mean:

When I use the word evolution, [...] I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1) Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2) Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3) Matter created life by itself.
4) Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5) Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

So in effect, he is requiring you to disprove the existence of god. This isn’t possible, as you can’t disprove a negative. A comparable analogy would be me putting forward the following statement.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe ten minutes ago, and gave everybody false memories of events, and planted evidence of events that happened before the creation to give the impression that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Disprove this and I will give you $250,000.

Or disprove the existence of Zeus, Apollo, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and I'll give you $250,000.

Obviously it is not possible, Mr Kent Hovind's offer is junk. He's not asking somebody to prove evolution, he's asking somebody to disprove god.