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 ...
And the relevance of this comment is.....?
It HAS to be there, even though we have no evidence of it, in order to create new comets...
I’m calling BS on that source. I just did a journal search on one of the largest university library databases in the US - no hits. Typical creationist lie.
Your comment above is in response to this:
You mean like when they drilled the ice cores in Greenland and scientists declared the annual heating and cooling showed the 250 foot core to record 338 'years'. Only to be later told the cores were on top of P-38 aircraft landed and abandoned in 1942. In this case they were off by a mere 676%
Question: if you are wrong, will you admit it?
“You can’t prove a negative”
Yes you can. Anyway, I don’t know how you can believe what you just said if you can’t, given it is a negative.
There are enough logical problems without bringing science into it. Did you ever wonder, for instance, how they can trace Jesus’ lineage back to King David through Joseph considering it was a “virgin birth”? But this guy would probably say Hid can suspend the rules of logic just like he suspended the laws of physics so that the earth stopped turning on its axis without catastrophe.
If you think you can prove a negative then, well good luck to you.
BTW, there are certain accepted words and their definitions that accompany them.
Your in inability to accept those words is something no one can help you with.
No, The Bible has passed through many filters, most notably of relatively recent history is King James. I suspect the bias of the patron may be rationally assumed. For me it is more a users guide to life. Not a literal, fundamentally unchallangable source. A Guide.
I also believe it an error to subscribe Mankind’s method of keeping time, as relevant to the Universe. Of what use is Mankind’s shifting definition (leap years) of a day to Jupiter or the Ort Cloud?
No one can prove the Bible says anything, definitively. Which makes this guy’s “literal” requirement a laugh.
King James, known contemporaneously as “Queen” James because of his rampant homosexuality.
Not that I assume the Bible translation that bears his name is necessarily any more (or less) inaccurate than any other translation - but it amuses me when some claim that his version is the ONE inspired by God.
I expect Stormer, to accept the reality of the “lost Squadron”, since it is so well documented.
The issue is, in my mind, how many exceptions is he willing to except before he stops to think for himself.
“Jesus said that God created Adam and Eve in the beginning”
No, man was created on day six. In the beginning there was only the word, which was God, so God was there, too, I guess. But all creationists must do is declare a biblical “day” to be as long as necessary. Twenty four hours, a million years, what’s the difference?
Your takedown is not that at all and rather lame.
Only if one takes a strictly-literalist approach to Genesis. And for the overwhelming majority of Christian history, that hasn’t been standard approach. Such men as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas both strongly refused a literalist interpretation, and to this day, their positions are considered orthodoxy in the Catholic Church.
That could be said about macro evolution as well. It is philosophy. There is little science to speak of. What they have deals with micro evolution. But I am ok with presenting what they have ... As long as other competing theories are presented.
But that is how it is with liberals, global warming advocates and evolutionists and academic blowhards. They don’t want debate or discusion and just want to indoctrinate children wth their beliefs. Screw them. That sort of monopolistic thinking pervades colleges and is a large part of our problem on the political scene.
Would your worldview or the foundations of your belief change if irrefutable facts showed that the Earth were no more than, say 10,000 years ?
I don’t want to hear “That’s not going to happen”
or
“It is settled science etc”
I want to know if it would CHANGE you ?
If so, how ?
I recall an experiment where 30 or so people are arranged in a circle, and one starts off wispering information into the next one’s ear, and the last one tells aloud what info they recieved. It normally morphs from the initial info.
Such is the nature of mankind.
“And this is called science?”
No, that’s a popular science article, written for an audience somewhere between the drooling masses and professionals. Real science, that kind anyway, is mostly numbers which neither you nor I would understand, nor care to try.
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.