Amusing Reply to a Creationist June 6, 2009

Amusing Reply to a Creationist

Here’s a great zinger for you.

Paranormal investigator Benjamin Radford wrote an article for Skeptical Inquirer in which he suggested dinosaurs died out approximately 65 million years ago. No surprises there.

In response, Radford received an email from a Creationist

In your article you assume that the earth is millions of years old and dinosaurs dies out 65 million yrs ago. Please provide empirical evidence of this. If you provide this evidence the Dr Kent Hovind will give you $250,000 dollars. There is more evidence to the contrary. Please see Dr Kent Hovind at and his associates for more infomation, I am sure he will welcme a debate.

Thank You, Laura

I love Radford’s response, which you can read here.

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • «bønez_brigade»

    I’m surprised that a creationist was reading Skeptical Inquirer. Methinks her intention wasn’t to “get her learn on”, though.

  • schism

    Perhaps the the Dr. Kent Hovind should have a talk with the Eli Vance. I’m sure the former would have interesting responses to the latter’s research into quantum entanglement.

  • mspeir

    No. If you provide empirical evidence for an old Earth, “Dr.” Kent Hovind will not give you $250,000.

  • So wait, what’s her position? Is it A) there is no empirical evidence for an old earth, or B) there is enough contrary evidence to overcome all the evidence for an old earth?

  • Beth B.

    I for one am glad that Laura shook some sense into me before I wasted more of my life doing research on these alleged 3 billion year old rocks. Thanks, Laura!

    …the willfully ignorant are really just so adorable sometimes.

  • Eliza

    Radford’s response is great!

  • David

    Radford’s response is a fun ad hominem, but adds nothing constructive. It would have been better to ignore the email. You’re not going to convince her of anything, and honestly, kicking Hovind while he’s down is petty. Not the type of behavior that I think should represent skepticism.

  • Great response. And not kicking Hovind while he’s down, either. Just a simple statement about trusting in someone who’s got a history of committing fraud.

  • medussa

    I agree, this isn’t kicking Hovind while he’s down.
    This is telling Laura to check her sources, their credibility might be a little damaged.

  • Jason R

    someone needs to send her and Hovind 4 things.

    Biology text book
    Physics text book
    Geography text book
    A ticket to a Natural History Museum.

    4 Independent proofs.

error: Content is protected !!