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 previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-202 next last
To: Tublecane

I think the idea is that something greater than nature has to be the cause of nature. Something “super” natural, if you will.


161 posted on 03/27/2013 5:47:43 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"I don’t see why either premise is necessary. Even if scripture is the Word of God and Jesus is the son of God/God, Genesis was written before Jesus was made flesh, and therefore he could have heard about the creation timeliness the same way you and I did. That is, either by reading the Torah or listening to someone who had."

Tublecane, think about what you're saying for a moment.

You're operating on the premise (at least here) that Jesus is God in flesh, yet He would need to hear about His own creation and His own word from a separate source to know it existed. That makes no sense.

162 posted on 03/27/2013 5:55:35 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: jps098
What's next, "When did I stop beating my wife?"

Actually, my next question is, "Were you intentionally lying when you claimed the ice core samples were taken from 'on top' of the P-38s, or were you just ignorantly wrong about it?"
163 posted on 03/27/2013 6:00:03 PM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz

Six days.


164 posted on 03/27/2013 6:00:24 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Yes, the mysterious, undetectable “Oort cloud.”


165 posted on 03/27/2013 6:01:44 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
The evolutionists note the problem with much of science today, but do not see it for what it could mean to their theories.

Using this as an example, they note the ice builds up faster where the P-38s were found. Why is it assumed the ice has always accumulated faster at that location or anywhere else without observation?

The land was named Greenland for a reason. For example, how do we know that from 600 AD to 900 AD the ice did not buildup faster or disappear for a time. No one was there recording the existence of glaciers and their sizes. If it had disappeared or greatly thinned for a time, it would have to have formed faster for a time to reach today's levels.

Science is supposed to be 'observable' and 'repeatable' and yet people use what they did not observe and cannot repeat as evidence for other science, and treat a supposition as fact. Using ice cores for measuring time is a fool's errand unless you can benchmark an event to a point in time. Mount St. Helens left a thin mark we can see today, but guess what; the alternating bands in ice cores do not create annual, countable "years" with an event so recent. Since the 1942 landing of the P38s, there is an average of almost 7 'bands per year, and yet we cannot tell even when these bands were laid down by year.

How/Why do scientists assume the core they are looking at shows 160,000 years when they cannot benchmark events with certainty more than small number of years in the past. All they can do is suppose and assume, and that is not science. They may guess correctly, but they could be as wrong as Al Gore. They must take much of their 'proofs' on faith, and when you attack their religion they lash out and call a Christian ignorant, a liar, or mount some other personal attack.
166 posted on 03/27/2013 8:07:39 PM PDT by jps098
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Neanderthals weren’t giants. A tall one would be 5-10 or 6’, but even a normal Neanderthal male at 5-9 could easily weigh 320 lbs without any fat on him. They had the same 6” Ice-Age fur coat as every other Ice-Age animal, huge eyes, big teeth, mean dispositions, killed megafauna with thrusting spears, and if anybody in Genesis had ever seen one of them, Genesis would say something about it. There is no possibility of anybody ever encountering one of those guys and not noticing it.


167 posted on 03/27/2013 8:32:30 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

I didn’t say He would *need* to hear about it from someone else. However, the fact that he could have takes away whatever special import there could be in his knowing it. You didn’t have to be Jesus to get the creation story right back then; any Joe Jew would know the gist


168 posted on 03/27/2013 9:06:13 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
If you do not believe his six day creation, you do not believe, so do not call yourself a believer.

What a ridiculous and erroneous claim. Show me where it says six 24 hour days! You cannot! Even within the first verses, we see that there is day and night, yet those things come to pass later, when the heavens are filled for that very purpose.

What belief do you eschew? That the earth is 6000 years old, is your presumption, but where is your proof? You are taking the words from another, and not applying a proper exegesis to those Words I noted. I have no way of determining the date and time of creation. I do believe it happened.

From: Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning. (www.godandscience.org)

Hebrews 11: 1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.2 For by it the men of old gained approval.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible

...and finally: 1 Corinthians 1: 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,29 so that no man may boast before God.30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,31 so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

169 posted on 03/27/2013 9:13:01 PM PDT by WVKayaker ("I've seen how nasty it can be for other conservatives as well. "-Sarah Palin 12/17/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
How matter came into being has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Darwinism is just mind games wrapped into word games. Your answer typifies the "scientific community"! "We just BELIEVE you are wrong, and WE are right", because a scientist cannot "prove" God! He can only "theorize" and "conceptualize"... and rot in Hell!


170 posted on 03/27/2013 9:20:23 PM PDT by WVKayaker ("I've seen how nasty it can be for other conservatives as well. "-Sarah Palin 12/17/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I always wonder, then, where God came from. What was He made out of?

It is a matter of faith, FRiend. It begins with a simple concept. There is a Book, written long ago, which purports to contain all the Wisdom of the ages. It is called the Bible, by most believers, which is just another word for book.

But, within it's pages are wondrous tales and samples of life. There is success. There is tragedy. There is sex. There is violence. But, throughout the tome, it has a trail of certainty, which can be used by what we call the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Spirits by any name are not contained in physical form, and not bound by physical attributes.

But, that truth must have a confirmation, and an acceptance. We call it faith. If you believe there CAN be a God, then He certainly would have all of the attributes of our God. He would be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Creating a universe would be child's play for such a being.

Also, there would be a motivating force, by which He is able to do things. We learn in our Bible that God is a Spirit, not a creature of flesh and blood. We also learn that He created us as imperfect beings, fraught with the dangers attached. He allowed us "free will" and often the result is what is called "sin".

The original word for "sin" means "missing the mark", as an arrow shot at the bullseye, but missing the center. Anything not in that small center is sin... and the penalty is SPIRITUAL death. He gave us the chance to say "no, thanks". But He didn't leave us. He also set a path to allow our imperfections to be overlooked, and excused.

God knew what He had done when He created us in His image, as He has no beginning and no end. He gave us a physical being, but we are also a spiritual being like him.

Time is a constant, and we BELIEVE He has the ability to see our hearts, before we are even a glimmer. He will allow us to fail miserably, and still give us a chance for Redemption from the penalties of sin, which would mean eternal separation from Him. Everybody gets that chance. Not all make a positive decision.

Jesus Christ is God, born miraculously (if you BELIEVE IT) to a virgin woman (human fled) and manifested as the son a carpenter, But He is a master builder. He was accepted by many, showed demonstrations of His powers, and had many followers. They continue to be added to the rolls today. I am one of them.

There is no proof for God. There is certainly no proof for Darwinism. Both require faith. For me, it is far easier to accept the truths of my Bible, and wonder how the Darwinists can be so naive.

How many penises does a paramecium have, and how many vaginas. None, yet we are to believe that man/woman came from such a single celled organism, out of the primordial slime.The need for such a simple thing as man and woman required for human reproduction flies in the face of Darwin's claims, and the more modern "evolutionary theory" is based on his supposition.

Even if you could accept the evolutionary theory, the time required for such change into all the simple and complex organisms we have today, could never have been completed by now. Your scientists say we are not old enough for those drastic changes, not me!

Believe it, or not!


171 posted on 03/28/2013 1:28:46 AM PDT by WVKayaker ("I've seen how nasty it can be for other conservatives as well. "-Sarah Palin 12/17/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
"a case worth considering" ... should always be considered.

I will order it and give it a look see ...

I am curious how they will handle Exodus 20 ...

172 posted on 03/28/2013 4:25:56 AM PDT by dartuser (My firearm is not illegal ... its undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

How so, regarding Exodus 20?


173 posted on 03/28/2013 5:25:35 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

That was not your previous point, and I said nothing at all about the span of time. You were wrong about Adam being created first. You said there was nothing before Adam, clearly contradicting Scripture. Now you are trying to cover up your error by obfuscation.


174 posted on 03/28/2013 7:28:30 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: WVKayaker

I think you might be dealing with a troll. I also challenged him on the point that Adam was created before everything else, and he similarly avoided facing his error by bringing up the 6 day period of time, which was not part of anything I addressed. All very much like a troll.


175 posted on 03/28/2013 7:39:56 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

You’re being a donkey (polite term).

You know exactly what I meant, and only look to confuse the issue, and stiffle the flow of the facts.


176 posted on 03/28/2013 8:27:48 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I think God created evolution.


177 posted on 03/28/2013 8:32:03 AM PDT by Blackirish (Forward Comrades!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WVKayaker

You have a general lack of understanding of God’s word.

The use of the terms ‘evening,’ and ‘morning,’ clearly depict normal days. The word is thick with proof that the Earth is presently 6013 years old.

A lack of understanding of that fact fails to negate it.

Wise Virgin, Foolish Virgin, pick your affiliation.


178 posted on 03/28/2013 8:32:57 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

>> “I think God created evolution.” <<

.
Cute.

God prevented evolution by using the DNA code in each and every cell he created. Each cell has a precise plan for the future embeded in its nucleus.


179 posted on 03/28/2013 8:35:07 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

You misquoted Scripture several times, making “what you meant” a little cloudy. Adam was not created first. That is clear, but you said the Bible “most certainly” said so. Call me names all you want, you are still wrong. Grow up and admit it.


180 posted on 03/28/2013 8:35:51 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-202 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