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 ...
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.
Bingo!
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.
Baptist ping
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?
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.