Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

RazedInBlack

RazedInBlack
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
35,316
#1
Creator of Literal Genesis Trial believes people who argue in favor of evolution are at a scientific disadvantage


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".

Mastropaolo believes that evolution cannot be proved scientifically. "It turns out that there is nothing in the universe [that] is evolving, everything is devolving, everything is going in the opposite direction," he said.

Mastropaolo started making public arguments in favor of creationism about 13 years ago, after reading an article about evolution in the newspaper. He has a PhD in kinesiology and taught biomechanics and physiology at a California university for more than 25 years. He is now a contributing writer at the Creation Science Hall of Fame, which is collaborating with him for the minitrial. The Creation Science Hall of Fame is a website, launched in February 2012, that honors those who have made contributions to creation science.

A majority of scientists disavow creationism, but a June 2012 Gallup poll showed that 46% of Americans believed in a literal interpretation of the biblical version of creation. Legislation to allow students to be taught religious versions of the creation of life is currently being considered in four states.

The Literal Genesis Trial contest would be held in a courthouse in Santa Ana, California and Mastropaolo has said he will create a list of potential superior court judges to decide the case. The participants would have to agree on a judge. Mastropaolo said that he hopes the trials can improve future debates between evolutionists and creationists by addressing the issue in a legal and scientific way.

"The evolutionists thereafter could read that transcript and make their case a bit stronger on the next one they contend against and we can do the same," Mastropaolo said. "We can read the transcript and not have have to go through the same process over and over and over again without any let up, without any resolution."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/25/creationist-trial-bible-genesis-evolution

Improving the quality of arguments? Considering the amount of trolling that has been going on here, I'm all for that.

If he believes that evolution cannot be proved scientifically, It would be interesting to know how creation CAN be proved scientifically as well.
 

warchylde

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
2,011
#2
Improving the quality of arguments? Considering the amount of trolling that has been going on here, I'm all for that.

If he believes that evolution cannot be proved scientifically, It would be interesting to know how creation CAN be proved scientifically as well.
This^^
 

HapticSimian

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
15,950
#3
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
#4
Creator of Literal Genesis Trial believes people who argue in favor of evolution are at a scientific disadvantage

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/25/creationist-trial-bible-genesis-evolution

Improving the quality of arguments? Considering the amount of trolling that has been going on here, I'm all for that.

If he believes that evolution cannot be proved scientifically, It would be interesting to know how creation CAN be proved scientifically as well.
Easy it would seem. We simply change the meaning of Scientific, to "whatever I want to believe". Because that is the only universe in which there is no scientific evidence for Evolution. Either this guy is seriously stupid, or he is planning on finding a serious halfwit to "Debate against". As it shows that he is trying to find a willing participant. Translation: "I am trying to find a scientist that is nowhere near my intellectual equal, or that has panic attacks in a public forum, in the hopes that with my quick tongue and barrage of nonsensical bull****, I can make him stutter and thus prove my point that evolution is not scientifically sound."
 

DrJohnZoidberg

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
20,814
#5
I can think of a few off the top of my head.

This is just another PR stunt. Wouldn't mind seeing this "debate" though :D
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
#9
I think it also has to do with who is adjudicating the minitrial. How is the "Winner" decided? If it is by popular vote within the audience, then there are obvious holes in that. In fact, you cannot get an easily impartial judge on this topic. Well at least not one that this fool will agree to. Because many scientists are impartial. So we are left with the only way to scientifically verify anything, as being pier reviewed articles and debates.
So back to square one. There are no pier reviewed articles on Literal Genesis creation. There are thousands on Evolution.

Which leaves me to believe that either this guy is an idiot or he has a sneaky plan up his sleeve to rig all of this in his favour. There are no other options here.
 

RazedInBlack

RazedInBlack
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
35,316
#10
Which leaves me to believe that either this guy is an idiot or he has a sneaky plan up his sleeve to rig all of this in his favour. There are no other options here.
He sounds pretty confident with regards to his claim on creationism. Over confidence perhaps?
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,301
#11
Rig it all he likes. He'll lose his $10k. And I'm guessing this will be live streamed as well. Rigging it will be rather obvious and will speak volumes more than anything else...
 

DrJohnZoidberg

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
20,814
#12
I think it also has to do with who is adjudicating the minitrial. How is the "Winner" decided? If it is by popular vote within the audience, then there are obvious holes in that. In fact, you cannot get an easily impartial judge on this topic. Well at least not one that this fool will agree to. Because many scientists are impartial. So we are left with the only way to scientifically verify anything, as being pier reviewed articles and debates.
So back to square one. There are no pier reviewed articles on Literal Genesis creation. There are thousands on Evolution.

Which leaves me to believe that either this guy is an idiot or he has a sneaky plan up his sleeve to rig all of this in his favour. There are no other options here.
Well I think we already know how that's going to work. There is no way any creationist argument could win in a completely unbiased, scientific manner. It's already been there and tried to do that and lost hopelessly.

Dover court case doccy:

[video=youtube;x2xyrel-2vI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI[/video]
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
#14
Rig it all he likes. He'll lose his $10k. And I'm guessing this will be live streamed as well. Rigging it will be rather obvious and will speak volumes more than anything else...
Ye but the problem is that many people wont recognise the fact that he rigged it, if he does. They would "Fly back to their flocks proclaiming victory", as it were. Ignorant of the great injustices done.

But that is getting ahead of ourselves. I look forward to seeing him get stomped on.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,301
#15
Ye but the problem is that many people wont recognise the fact that he rigged it, if he does. They would "Fly back to their flocks proclaiming victory", as it were. Ignorant of the great injustices done.
You think if he lost, they'd fly back to their flocks and tell them it's all over and they were wrong? :D
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
#16
You think if he lost, they'd fly back to their flocks and tell them it's all over and they were wrong? :D
True. I guess I just have the hope that if he lost, there might be a few more people that made the connection than if he won under false pretenses.
 

JonnStar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
186
#18
Sorry if this is a bit ignorant, short sighted or uneducated. Might I ask what is the difference essentially between genetic mutation and evolution? And how someone can deny the one without denying the other?
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
70,301
#19
Quite simply, evolution is the process. Mutation is the mechanism. Not all mutations result in evolution in any sense, as most mutations are actually destructive and are eliminated from the gene pool. Those mutations that are of benefit are replicated in the gene pool as the host survives, and now you have the beginnings of natural selection taking place.

It's an incredibly simple concept to grasp. So simple in fact that I wonder how some people deny it. We know that genetic mutations occur. We know that beneficial mutations are genetically inherited. We therefore know that the mechanism occurs, and the change occurs. Now imagine this process happening billions of times over and over, and you can see how natural selection will by its very nature result in the evolution of a species, and in fact speciation dependent of course on numerous external factors...
 
Last edited:

wayfarer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,619
#20
...If he believes that evolution cannot be proved scientifically, It would be interesting to know how creation CAN be proved scientifically as well.
Creationism speaks about God creating directly, and not employing natural science (also created by Him) as the method for creation. From our perspective, God generally executes His will through what appears to be natural processes, or natural science. However, when He acts transcending science, we interpret it as miraculous enactment.

It does not make sense, then, to expect scientific explanations/substantiations for creationism. Nor would science be able to disprove it. In addition to science, perhaps respect for logic and a bit of common sense is what is required to demonstrate the real unlikeliness of a literal Genesis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top