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: 67027
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 # 92.
#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
Can you show me this in the lab? Show me a video of this happening in the lab. I'm talking about in humans. It is just made up speculation. That isn't science friend. You can't because it didn't. Well you can't.
Yes, it is a proven, OBSERVED, fact that some species of insects, birds, reptiles, etc. switch between asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction. When there is a shortage of males, the females use asexual reproduction for survival. When is there an abundance of males, they switch to sexual reproduction to pass on the best genes. PROVEN. OBSERVED. FACT.
It is also an observed fact that trees have leaves. Some reproduce asexually. Do you expect to see a person born with leaves for hair? No of course not. We produce after like kind. Here is another OBSERVED fact. The species that you mentioned were created a certain way. And they keep reproducing after like kind. Because some cell or plane can reproduce asexually doesn't mean people can. Here is another OBSERVABLE fact. Only humans can reproduce humans. We never evolve into something else. We have different characteristics but we always reproduce humans. Here is another OBSERVABLE fact. Cats always reproduce cats. They never turn into something else. Another OBSERVABLE fact. When I plant an apple tree I am sure that I will not get some new evolved tree. Do you worry about that when you buy a plant that it might evolve into something else? Why not? I'll tell you why because your subconscious is smarter then your conscious here.
Are you retarded or what? Seriously.
You've insulted retarded people...
You've insulted retarded people... Thanx for letting us know you are offended.
#94. To: Lenny (#92)
war like black men's cock If you realize that about him, you should be fine with him after that.
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.
#33. To: jwpegler (#32)
Asexual reproduction came first.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#33)
Can you show me this in the lab?
#38. To: jwpegler (#35)
Yes, it is a proven, OBSERVED, fact that some species of insects, birds, reptiles, etc. switch between asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction.
#50. To: A K A Stone (#38)
It is also an observed fact that trees have leaves. Some reproduce asexually. Do you expect to see a person born with leaves for hair?
#88. To: jwpegler (#50)
Are you retarded or what? Seriously.
#92. To: war (#88)
Are you retarded or what? Seriously.
Replies to Comment # 92.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 92.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]