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: 67116
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 # 86.
#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.
And you still haven't answered what came first the penis or the vagina. For a person to be born it takes two parents. Tell me genius how was a baby born without two parents first. It is a scientific fact that it takes a male and a female person to produce a child. Prove to us now oh genius that it happened some other way. And throwing the virgin birth of Jesus out doesn't cut it either.
For a person to be born it takes two parents. Tell me genius how was a baby born without two parents first. Asexual reproduction came first. Some species TODAY alternate between the sexual and asexual reproductive strategies. From WIKIPEDIA: Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions. Alternation is observed in several rotifer species and a few types of insects, such as aphids which will, under certain conditions, produce eggs that have not gone through meiosis, thus cloning themselves. The cape bee Apis mellifera subsp. capensis can reproduce asexually through a process called thelytoky. A few species of amphibians, reptiles, and birds have a similar ability (see parthenogenesis for examples). For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases. Another example are monogonont rotifers of the genus Brachionus, which reproduce via cyclical parthenogenesis: at low population densities females produce asexually and at higher densities a chemical cue accumulates and induces the transition to sexual reproduction. Many protists and fungi alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction. The world is stranger than you think Stone
Ok you say Asexual reproduction came first. Ok what did it produce first a penis or a vagina. Did two separate entities happen to evolve compatible parts? You know a vagina and a penis. You sound like the wizard of oz.
And you sound like Gomer Pyle -- SHAZAMMM!!!! God created the earth in 6 days. Why didn't he do it in 6 seconds?
Why didn't he do it in 6 seconds? Yes God created the Earth in 6 days, and the Heavens also. I don't know why he didn't do it in 6 seconds. I know that there is a book that claims to be from God. It tells a whole lot of interesting stuff about us humans. It says he created us. It says to test it and prove it. It is an like an anvil that has worn out many hammers. Like I said earlier it says there was a a worldwide flood. If that really happened I would expect to find the fossil record we have today. That is some proof that the Bible is true. One of many "proofs". The satanic religion of evolution has no explanation for the fossil record.
We're not talking about evolution. We're talking about physics -- the age of the universe. I agree that evolution has all kinds of problems. The more things we discover, the more problems evolution has. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. We're talking about the age of the universe. Unlike evolution, the more we learn about the universe, the more the standard model of physics is PROVEN correct. The universe is 13.8 billion years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is NO question about this. Again Stone, you don't have any real evidence to support your views, so you change the subject to evolution, which has a growing number of issues. Pitiful.
I really don't want to get into this too much because it's mostly futile. However, your statement about this being PROVEN is a bit ignorant. Outside of mathematics, nothing is really proven in science ( and some of that is questionable). What you can say is there are a lot of mutually agreeable arguments for the age of the universe being billions of years. But if you think that that anyone who says God created the heavens and earth some 6000 years must be some inbred moron, you'd be wrong on this too. Many knowledgeable young earth creationists present sound backing for their ideas; they are just mostly ignored.
Again, the more we learn about evolution, the more we know that it's wrong. We have never found any intermediate species that the Darwinist's predicted we would. The evidence has not materialized. Darwinism is as much a religion as fundamentalist Christianity, because they don't have any evidence and because they don't believe that they can be proven wrong. Physics is a different story. Physics is proven wrong all of the time. Unlike evolutionists, physicists are willing to be proven wrong. However, observation over the last four decades has been right in line with with the early theories of the expanding universe and the prediction of the evidence that we would find left over from the big bang (the cosmic background radiation). We have now heard the cosmic background radiation. We have now seen the cosmic background radiation. It's there, just as predicted. Observation has proven the theory -- real science. It tells us that the universe is a little less than 13.8 BILLION years old. As I said early, maybe we are all just part of a computer simulation with God as the programmer and god planted all of this evidence. But the evidence is there. There is no denying it. I have to get on a plane. I'll be back tomorrow.
"We've", in fact, found several..
Was your mother one? If not start naming them please.
You effing a-hole. You should be boiled in oil.
You effing a-hole. You should be boiled in oil. Little war is the one who wsid there is a missing link. He said lots of them. Why couldn't it be his mom? Since there are no "missing links" and he couldn't name any.
#87. To: A K A Stone (#86)
You really are a piece of shit, Stone.
So...do you have your own 'mommy' problems? Since you prefer to ban posters who defend theirs against those like yourself who are rude and disrepectful.
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.
#26. To: jwpegler (#20)
#32. To: A K A Stone (#26)
And you still haven't answered what came first the penis or the vagina.
#34. To: jwpegler (#32)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#34)
(Edited)
You sound like the wizard of oz.
#40. To: jwpegler (#36)
God created the earth in 6 days.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#40)
(Edited)
he satanic religion of evolution has no explanation for the fossil record.
#52. To: jwpegler (#49)
Unlike evolution, the more we learn about the universe, the more the standard model of physics is PROVEN correct.
#54. To: no gnu taxes, A K A Stone (#52)
(Edited)
#79. To: jwpegler (#54)
Again, the more we learn about evolution, the more we know that it's wrong. We have never found any intermediate species that the Darwinist's predicted we would.
#81. To: war (#79)
"We've", in fact, found several..
#84. To: A K A Stone (#81)
Was your mother one?
#86. To: Fred Mertz, war (#84)
Was your mother one?
Replies to Comment # 86. Why couldn't it be his mom?
#90. To: A K A Stone (#86)
Little war is the one who wsid there is a missing link. He said lots of them. Why couldn't it be his mom? Since there are no "missing links" and he couldn't name any.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 86.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]