Skip to comments.Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution
Posted on 03/27/2013 11:15:00 AM PDT by EveningStar
A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.
Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial ...
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
You can’t prove a negative.
I would much rather see an offer for a scientist to “Prove” materialism/naturalism/reductionism is the only basis for understanding the world around us.
image courtesy www.themandus.org
Cro Magnons had killed out the Neanderthal prior to the arrival of Adam and Eve.
This is nothing more than someone saying 'Look at Meeeeee!', but the left wing UK Guardian believes this is 'news'.
There was nothing prior to the arrival of Adam, not even a universe.
Presenting evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years should win it I would think.
He will never have to pay anything.
Most of what gets called “science” WRT creation, is just psuedointellectual psycho-masturbation. There is no science there. It’s all media circus.
Who’s the judge?
>> “Presenting evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years should win it I would think.” <<
If there were any, but that’s the hitch; its all imagination.
Magnetic striping of the oceans, and the lengthier ice cores should do it.
First you have to get by the myriads of literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis. A judge can't do that.
This is no more worthy of being ‘news’ than Mad Dog McCree offering a $10,000 prize to any challenger who can drink him under the table next Friday night at the Bucket O’ Blood Saloon in Deadwood, SD.
Good grief - there are trees that old.
IMHO, Genesis 1 isn't about the origins of life on earth. It's a prologue or introduction to the story, meant to teach the interpretation of a pattern of Hebrew verbs in repeated cycles found throughout the rest of the Bible. It is the foundation for understanding the redemptive pattern set out as an example from Genesis 2:5 through Genesis 8. Even the first word, "bereshit," does not mean "in THE beginning," as there is no definite article in the Hebrew.
but more accurately, interpreting the evidence by assuming what you’re trying to prove.
There are at least 30 well documented different ways demonstrating it's obvious the Earth is older than 6,000 years.
Perhaps the simplest are the yearly ice layers in Antartica and Greenland - the Earth is at LEAST 160,000 years old based on that.
I find it interesting that knowledgeable people going out and actually drilling these ice cores is "imagination" and a document of unknown authorship that is 2,600 years old is no.
Much simpler and much more profound would be to conceive a “trial” where not allowing creation to be taught is attacked by presenting as much evidence as allowed of intelligent design (intelligent deign is literally everywhere) to prove creation.
Start with Augustine
IMHO it has always been the same story, just from two different frames of reference.
Doesn’t take much interpretation to think that it took 100,000 years for light to reach us from an object 100000 light years away. But it takes a lot of lame excuses and hand waving to make it conform to the answer anywhere close to where the creationist already knows a priori that it just has to be!
That’s enough proof to me that it evolved from Rosie odonnel.
A good additional one will be the Gaia spacecraft launching this year, which will be able to measure the distance to stars up to 30,000 light-years away through straightforward parallax trigonometry, thus adding yet another proof the galaxy, at least, is older than 6,000 years.
It will be amusing to watch the young-earth creationists contort themselves into trying to disprove those results - probably through some silly claims the speed of light has radically changed in the last 6,000 years.
Well I'm not a geologist but I'm pretty sure they're on pretty solid ground when they point to evidence that indicates the earth is millions if not billions of years old rather than only a few thousand. Nothing imaginary in that.
We’re also seeing light from stars further out than the atheists’ estimation of the age of creation.
Interestingly enough, there are “young stars and Galaxy’s” that we shouldn’t be able to see.
These threads are always so much fun to read.
Hilarious that you cannot even attempt to make an argument against scientific evidence without making it an argument against atheism.
“Cuz like only dem atheists cud belives in sompin dat is agins what I think da Bible tells me!”
No, because no one would be able to prove the Bible states the Earth is only 6000 years old.
And this relates to the Bible how.....?
Always the a priori assumptions that fowl the argument ...
The Genesis text says the stars were created to mark times and seasons ... if the photon stream from the stars to the earth were not part of the creation then the light from the stars couldn't be used to mark times and seasons.
That would come as a pretty big surprise to Bishop Ussher and young Earth creationists the world over.
Any debate needs a few rules and definitions. First order of business: agree on a definition of time that isn’t circular or self-serving. That should prove to be pretty challenging.
Creationism is imagination. The half life decay of atoms and the speed of light are demonstrable real life events which are observable.
How about light from stars that have not even existed within the last six thousand years? Just a stream of light where a dying star would be if it had ever actually existed? Fake evidence of an object that never existed is one messed up theological apologetics work around to arrive at the a priori assumption.
Where in the book of Genesis does it state the Earth is 6000 years old?
The Bible doesn’t even say that.
Which version of the Book of Genesis is to be used as the literal interpretation? That question alone can provoke an endless dispute.
Again, no contortion is necessary ... the light from the stars was part of creation as the Genesis text says the stars were put in place to mark times and seasons. If the photon stream was not part of the creation the stars could not be used to mark times and seasons.
Creationism is reality. It is supported by the faultless recording of ancient fact. The half life decay of atoms and the speed of light are points without an initial point of reference, and there is no way to establish one objectively. Without objectivity there is no science, only politics.
Yes, the Bible definitely does say that.
Sounds like an ill-conceived stunt. Neither the Bible nor evolution can be definitively “proved”. Neither side will likely ever be able to declare victory. The real public issue is what should be taught on school. I believe multiple theories should be presented to the student.
You have understood the essence of the problem. Facts will not matter, for either side. Who's the judge is the only relevant question.
How about light from stars and galaxy’s that are too young for us to see ?
Given the standard model of star and galaxy formation that would also apply to our galaxy, there are a number of examples in which these stars are too far away, given their age, for us to actually see.
Maybe, you can evoke the “Allmendream” belt to resolve this paradox.
Very true. The differing “sides” of the debate can’t really even agree on some fundamentals amongst themselves. For all of these reasons, I think the guy’s $10,000 is pretty safe.
They can't be the same; they're mutually exclusive.
According to the Bible,there was no bloodshed nor death until after the fall of man. On the other hand, evolution teaches that there were millions upon millions of years of suffering and dying before humans ever came along.
Jesus said that God created Adam and Eve in the beginning; evolution says man is a fairly recent occurrence. You have to pick which one you're going to go with.