[Zeneta]

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.

[varmintman]

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.

[The KG9 Kid]

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'.

[DoodleDawg]

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.

[allmendream]

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.

[PapaNew]

Who’s the judge?

[PapaNew]

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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[PapaNew]

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.

[Shark24]

Start with Augustine

[swamprebel]

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

[ZX12R]

These threads are always so much fun to read.

[stormer]

[WKB]

Baptist ping

[cdcdawg]

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.

[plain talk]

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.

[elkfersupper]

All of the people on all sides of this continuing argument are undeniably, purposefully and intentionally crazy.

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!

[SoFloFreeper]

One of the more helpful newly published books regarding the context of Genesis...

[Truth2012]

heh- excellent.

[Oztrich Boy]

"As for science vs. religion, I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 500 yards from science at all times."