Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution
Source:
The Guardian
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201 ... -trial-bible-genesis-evolution
Published: Mar 27, 2013
Author: Amanda Holepunch
Post Date: 2013-03-27 15:33:40 by Thunderbird
Keywords: Creation, Evolution, Trial
Views: 67224
Comments: 104
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, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance. The argument would not be made in a formal court, but under an alternative dispute resolution model known as a minitrial. Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific. News World news Creationism Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution Creator of Literal Genesis Trial believes people who argue in favor of evolution are at a scientific disadvantage Share Tweet this Email Amanda Holpuch guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 March 2013 15.46 EDT Jump to comments (437) creationism A scene from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Photograph: Jeff Haynes/AFP/Getty Images 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, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance. The argument would not be made in a formal court, but under an alternative dispute resolution model known as a minitrial. Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific. "They [evolutionists] are not stupid people, they are bright, but they are bright enough to know there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial," Mastropaolo said. A minitrial differs from a regular trial because it does not need to be held in a courthouse and does not require the presence of traditional court figures. Mastropaolo plans to have a bailiff and court reporter in attendance, along with the judge. Contest rules state that evidence must be scientific, which means it is "objective, valid, reliable and calibrated". --snip--
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
#1. To: Thunderbird (#0)
(Edited)
The bible shouldn't be read literally. Israelites: We wandered in the desert for 40 years. Native Americas: We haven't had rain in many moons. 40 years, many moons -- both mean a really long time. God created the universe in 6 days. 6 days means a very short time, because god is powerful. They are expressions, not accurate measures of time. All evidence points to the earth being about 4.5 billion years old, in a universe that's 13.8 billion years old. There is no evidence, anywhere that demonstrates that the earth and universe are 6,000 years old. NONE. Of course, everything we see (including us) could be a computer simulation that is 10 seconds old -- with all of our memories, experiences, and everything we see around us pre-programmed in before the program started up 10 seconds ago. 10 seconds, 6,000 years, both are a real scientific possibility. However, from our perspective, living in this universe, science is very clear about the age of the universe -- including brand new evidence from high resolution scans of the cosmic microwave background radiation. We have to go with what we can prove through science.
All evidence points to a young earth. Just like God said. His word is accurate. You said we have to go with what we can prove. You can't prove any of the comments you made. Not one.
There is no evidence for a young earth. NONE. There is tons of evidence for the universe being 13.8 billion years old and the earth being 4.5 billions of years old. The evidence includes, but is not limited to: the rate the universe is expanding, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the observable life-cycle of stars of various types, the newly observable life-cycle of exo-planet formation, the geological record on earth, and much more. The vast majority of Christians reject this young earth nonsense. Young earth believers are a small minority within the Christian community. They shouldn't be taken seriously because they reject all scientific evidence out-of-hand, just like you are doing here.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen you utter. The earth is young and there is evidence for it. Show me some of your evidnece for a so called old earth. So I can shoot it down. Lets start with this one. What came first the penis or the vagina?
I already did, namely:
I already did, namely: 1.) the rate the universe is expanding 2.) the cosmic microwave background radiation 3.) the observable life-cycle of stars of various types 4.) the newly observable life-cycle of exo-planet formation 5.) the geological record on earth More.... Ok you have cut and pasted some list from somewhere. Or maybe you made up the list. You do realize your list doesn't prove anything. Now explain if you can how these things prove an old earth.
The cosmic microwave background radiation... In the 1940s, physicist George Gamow was the first to realize that, because the universe is all there is, the huge heat from a hot Big Bang could not dissipate in the same way as the heat from a regular explosion and therefore it must still be around today. In 1948, Gamow's research students, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman argued that because the Big Bang effectively happened everywhere simultaneously, that energy should be equally spread as cosmic microwave background radiation. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, of Bell Telephone Laboratories, discovered exactly that. The mysterious microwave static they picked up on their microwave antenna seemed to be coming equally from every direction in the sky, and eventually they realized that this microwave radiation (which has a temperature of about -270°C, marginally above absolute zero) must indeed be the “afterglow” of the Big Bang. This discovery, perhaps the most important cosmological discovery since Edwin Hubble had shown that we live in an expanding universe, was powerful evidence that our universe had indeed begun in a hot, dense state and had been growing and cooling ever since. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was launched in 2001 to measure the cosmic background radiation. Among other things, WMAP has determined the universe to be 13.77 billion years old to within a half percent. The universe is 13.77 billion years old, not 6,000 years old. This is called real science -- theory that has been proven by actual observation.
Bullshit. They are making this stuff up. There was no way of knowing this. How is it proven? Specifically.
I've already told you. But, your stubborn mind is already made up, so what's the point in beating my head against the wall with you on this? There is no point.
#31. To: jwpegler (#29)
I've already told you. Yeah you told me. But you didn't even come close to proving anything. You're biased and ignore the facts. You still can't answer how a kid was born without two parents. If we evolved tell me how the sex organs evolved? You can't. How did they eyes evolve and why? You can't. You have nothing but a bunch of people in white lab coats that you seem to trust but never verify.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestscience contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis
#2. To: jwpegler (#1)
All evidence points to the earth being about 4.5 billion years old, in a universe that's 13.8 billion years old.
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
All evidence points to a young earth.
#5. To: jwpegler (#3)
There is no evidence for a young earth. NONE.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#5)
Show me some of your evidnece for a so called old earth. So I can shoot it down.
1.) the rate the universe is expanding
2.) the cosmic microwave background radiation
3.) the observable life-cycle of stars of various types
4.) the newly observable life-cycle of exo-planet formation
5.) the geological record on earth
More....
You on the other hand keep repeating the same thing over and over without mentioning any evidence to support your assertion.
#10. To: jwpegler (#8)
Show me some of your evidnece for a so called old earth. So I can shoot it down.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#10)
(Edited)
Now explain if you can how these things prove an old earth.
#22. To: jwpegler (#20)
because the Big Bang effectively happened everywhere simultaneously
#29. To: A K A Stone (#22)
How is it proven? Specifically.
Replies to Comment # 29. How is it proven? Specifically.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]