Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution
The Guardian ^ | March 25, 2013 | Amanda Holpuch

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: California
KEYWORDS: creation; creationism; evolution; josephmastropaolo; literalgenesistrial; religion; science; stars; verminman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

1 posted on 03/27/2013 11:15:00 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

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.


2 posted on 03/27/2013 11:23:42 AM PDT by Zeneta (No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Notwithstanding the fact that evolution is a bunch of BS, this guy will lose. For one thing, if Adam and Eve or anybody descended from them had ever seen a Neanderthal, Genesis would say something about it:


image courtesy www.themandus.org

Cro Magnons had killed out the Neanderthal prior to the arrival of Adam and Eve.

3 posted on 03/27/2013 11:23:43 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
He can't pay, won't pay, and will never accept defeat.

This is nothing more than someone saying 'Look at Meeeeee!', but the left wing UK Guardian believes this is 'news'.

4 posted on 03/27/2013 11:24:17 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid (Demand Common Sense Nut Control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

There was nothing prior to the arrival of Adam, not even a universe.


5 posted on 03/27/2013 11:25:34 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Presenting evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years should win it I would think.

6 posted on 03/27/2013 11:26:28 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Well not just evolution then, there is also geology, astronomy and physics. But no problem - creationists tend to call all those disciplines “evolution” anyway - just as soon as their findings contradict their theologically derived timeline.
7 posted on 03/27/2013 11:27:29 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid

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.


8 posted on 03/27/2013 11:28:56 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Who’s the judge?


9 posted on 03/27/2013 11:29:51 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

>> “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.


10 posted on 03/27/2013 11:30:42 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Presenting evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years should win it I would think.

Magnetic striping of the oceans, and the lengthier ice cores should do it.

11 posted on 03/27/2013 11:31:28 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
This is not a product of the leftist media. This is being covered elsewhere too.
12 posted on 03/27/2013 11:31:28 AM PDT by EveningStar ("What color is the sky in your world?" -- Frasier Crane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis

First you have to get by the myriads of literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis. A judge can't do that.

13 posted on 03/27/2013 11:32:08 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

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.


14 posted on 03/27/2013 11:35:08 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid (Demand Common Sense Nut Control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Good grief - there are trees that old.


15 posted on 03/27/2013 11:35:45 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

16 posted on 03/27/2013 11:36:32 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“imagination”, maybe,

but more accurately, interpreting the evidence by assuming what you’re trying to prove.


17 posted on 03/27/2013 11:36:36 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
If there were any, but that’s the hitch; its all imagination.

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.

18 posted on 03/27/2013 11:39:58 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

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.


19 posted on 03/27/2013 11:40:07 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Start with Augustine


20 posted on 03/27/2013 11:42:27 AM PDT by Shark24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

IMHO it has always been the same story, just from two different frames of reference.


21 posted on 03/27/2013 11:42:45 AM PDT by swamprebel (a Constitution once changed from Freedom, can never be restored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

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!


22 posted on 03/27/2013 11:43:43 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

That’s enough proof to me that it evolved from Rosie odonnel.


23 posted on 03/27/2013 11:44:10 AM PDT by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Magnetic striping of the oceans, and the lengthier ice cores should do it.

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.

24 posted on 03/27/2013 11:44:47 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
If there were any, but that’s the hitch; its all imagination.

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.

25 posted on 03/27/2013 11:46:10 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

We’re also seeing light from stars further out than the atheists’ estimation of the age of creation.


26 posted on 03/27/2013 11:47:42 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Interestingly enough, there are “young stars and Galaxy’s” that we shouldn’t be able to see.


27 posted on 03/27/2013 11:49:12 AM PDT by Zeneta (No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

These threads are always so much fun to read.


28 posted on 03/27/2013 11:50:07 AM PDT by ZX12R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
By “atheists” do you mean “Astronomers”?

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!”

29 posted on 03/27/2013 11:51:05 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Presenting evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years should win it I would think.

No, because no one would be able to prove the Bible states the Earth is only 6000 years old.

30 posted on 03/27/2013 11:56:45 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
"This is nothing more than someone saying 'Look at Meeeeee!', but the left wing UK Guardian believes this is 'news'. "

Bingo!

31 posted on 03/27/2013 11:57:08 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
There are at least 30 well documented different ways demonstrating it's obvious the Earth is older than 6,000 years.

And this relates to the Bible how.....?

32 posted on 03/27/2013 11:59:19 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

33 posted on 03/27/2013 11:59:57 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
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.

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.

34 posted on 03/27/2013 12:00:19 PM PDT by dartuser (My firearm is not illegal ... its undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
No, because no one would be able to prove the Bible states the Earth is only 6000 years old.

That would come as a pretty big surprise to Bishop Ussher and young Earth creationists the world over.

35 posted on 03/27/2013 12:01:57 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; GiovannaNicoletta; F15Eagle; .45 Long Colt; Buddygirl; Former Fetus; Bockscar; ...

Baptist ping


36 posted on 03/27/2013 12:02:01 PM PDT by WKB ( Remember "Bush Lied and People Died" Now it's "People died and Obama Lied")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

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.


37 posted on 03/27/2013 12:02:13 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Creationism is imagination. The half life decay of atoms and the speed of light are demonstrable real life events which are observable.


38 posted on 03/27/2013 12:03:20 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Last Thursdayism.

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.

39 posted on 03/27/2013 12:04:06 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Presenting evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years should win it I would think.

Where in the book of Genesis does it state the Earth is 6000 years old?

40 posted on 03/27/2013 12:05:53 PM PDT by upsdriver ( Palin/West '16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The Bible doesn’t even say that.


41 posted on 03/27/2013 12:05:56 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

Which version of the Book of Genesis is to be used as the literal interpretation? That question alone can provoke an endless dispute.


42 posted on 03/27/2013 12:08:05 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
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.

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.

43 posted on 03/27/2013 12:10:19 PM PDT by dartuser (My firearm is not illegal ... its undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

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.


44 posted on 03/27/2013 12:10:59 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz

Yes, the Bible definitely does say that.


45 posted on 03/27/2013 12:12:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

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.


46 posted on 03/27/2013 12:13:33 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Who’s the judge?

You have understood the essence of the problem. Facts will not matter, for either side. Who's the judge is the only relevant question.

47 posted on 03/27/2013 12:14:04 PM PDT by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

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.


48 posted on 03/27/2013 12:15:24 PM PDT by Zeneta (No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

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.


49 posted on 03/27/2013 12:16:07 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: swamprebel
"IMHO it has always been the same story, just from two different frames of reference."

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.

50 posted on 03/27/2013 12:16:17 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson