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 ...
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.
That Adam and Eve existed before the Universe?
There’s always a “saving device”, like the “Oort cloud”, to rescue an assumption / circular reasoning.
The ones that are too young for us to see? Easy. We don’t see them. Young stars from 100000 light years away that we do see and that look young are 100000 years older than the light we observed.
“I believe multiple theories should be presented to the student.”
That is perfectly reasonable for studies in philosophy and theology, but is contradictory to natural sciencce and the scientific method of experimentation and observation of results.
I don't know why I even bother to comment on these things anymore.
Who knows or cares how or why we got here? Here we are. Let's make the best of it.
Sheesh!
That’s a joke, right?
Adam’s body, or his spirit? God does 20 or so verses of creating in Genesis, before He gets around to Adam’s body.
But we do see them.
Some Ancient Star Clusters Look Surprisingly Young by Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior Writer Date: 19 December 2012 Time: 04:12 PM ET
http://www.livescience.com/25689-star-clusters-aging-rates.html
Just like people, huge star clusters age at variable rates depending on their lifestyles, a new study reports.
While such star clusters are many billions of years old, some of them manage to stay young at heart while others speed along toward decrepitude, astronomers found.
"By studying the distribution of a type of blue star that exists in the clusters, we found that some clusters had indeed evolved much faster over their lifetimes, and we developed a way to measure the rate of aging," lead author Francesco Ferraro, of the University of Bologna in Italy, said in a statement.
Ferraro and his colleagues used NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and several ground-based instruments to study 21 globular clusters scattered throughout the Milky Way galaxy.
Globular clusters are spherical collections of hundreds of thousands of stars held together by gravity. The 21 clusters examined in the new study all formed more than 10.5 billion years ago — not too long after the Big Bang, which created our universe 13.7 billion years ago.
The team focused on so-called "blue stragglers" within the clusters — stars that are much bigger and brighter than their ages should allow (since large, luminous stars tend to burn out quickly). Astronomers think blue stragglers get reinvigorated by sucking matter from, or colliding with, neighboring stars.
Because blue stragglers are so massive, they tend to sink toward the center of clusters over time, just as heavier sediments settle at the bottom of a river or lake. But the new study suggests that this process occurs at different rates from cluster to cluster.
A few clusters had blue stragglers distributed throughout, making them appear young. Some seemed old, with the stragglers already clumped in the center. And others were somewhere in between.
"Since these clusters all formed at roughly the same time, this reveals big differences in the speed of evolution from cluster to cluster," said co-author Barbara Lanzoni, also of the University of Bologna. "In the case of fast-aging clusters, we think that the sedimentation process can be complete within a few hundred million years, while for the slowest it would take several times the current age of the universe."
The study was published online today (Dec. 19) in the journal Nature.
And this is called science ?
To me, Genesis describes evolution perfectly. Just not in the time frame man wants to give it. Evolution doesn’t necessarily mean that we can from apes though. Genesis just describes the order that the universe evolved. Which has been proven to be pretty much correct.
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.