$10,000 To Disprove Genesis

[BLAZER PROPHET]

http://www.newser.com/story/165107/creationist-10k-to-anyone-who-can-disprove-genesis.html

(Newser) – A California creationist believes the Biblical book of Genesis is a literal account of the universe's origins—and he's putting his money where his mouth is. Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo is offering $10,000 to anyone who can successfully disprove a literal interpretation, using science, in front of a judge. He's calling the challenge the Literal Genesis Trial, the Guardian reports. Anyone who wants to take him up on the offer must also pony up his or her own $10,000; winner takes all.

A dispute resolution model known as a minitrial would be used to hear the arguments from Mastropaolo and his opponent. A bailiff and court reporter will attend, in addition to a judge OKed by both sides. Per the rules, all "evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated." Mastropaolo, who has a PhD in kinesiology and has taught both biomechanics and physiology, says his goal is to heighten the quality of creation science vs. evolution debate. But first he has to find a willing opponent: "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," he says.

Interesting.

Any S2 takers?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I can do it, but $10,000 isn't enough.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I can do it, but $10,000 isn't enough.

Then go for it, big boy.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I told you, $10,000 isn't enough.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm pretty sure Genesis broke up in the 80s....

Where's my $10k?

 

[speeds]

Only in America!

 

[magnifier661]

I told you, $10,000 isn't enough.

Don't worry, the publicity will make you millions in the long run!

 

[santeesioux]

'Murica

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I told you, $10,000 isn't enough.

[snicker snicker]

fail

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Place $1,000,000 in an escrow account and we'll talk. :MARIS61:

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I'd love to see a challange. It'd be fascinating.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Place $1,000,000 in an escrow account and we'll talk. :MARIS61:

You're all talk. No guts. Pffffft. Whimp meat.

Next.

 

[donkiez]

Its the same thing as the million dollars to prove evolution challenge that was out there years ago. You can never prove these things to the absolutness required to claim the money. Creationist love to use sciences strength of not dealing in absolutes against them and then laud it over them as proof.

An interesting example is that you can't actually prove smoking causes cancer. Everyone pretty much accepts the high rate of cancer in smokers as proof but in reality there are to many variables in each persons life to attribute their cancer to the cigarette with 100% certainty.

 

[magnifier661]

Place $1,000,000 in an escrow account and we'll talk. :MARIS61:

Hawkins made millions on his delusional god book. You should follow suit!

 

[magnifier661]

Its the same thing as the million dollars to prove evolution challenge that was out there years ago. You can never prove these things to the absolutness required to claim the money. Creationist love to use sciences strength of not dealing in absolutes against them and then laud it over them as proof.

An interesting example is that you can't actually prove smoking causes cancer. Everyone pretty much accepts the high rate of cancer in smokers as proof but in reality there are to many variables in each persons life to attribute their cancer to the cigarette with 100% certainty.

I am a Christian and I believe the universe is billions of years old. And if there is proof that the earth is 10,000 years old I'd believe that too; but right now I don't.

Did I mention that I adopt evolution too? Don't be so quick to judge Christians. There are a lot of me out there.

 

[Denny Crane]

Its the same thing as the million dollars to prove evolution challenge that was out there years ago. You can never prove these things to the absolutness required to claim the money. Creationist love to use sciences strength of not dealing in absolutes against them and then laud it over them as proof.

An interesting example is that you can't actually prove smoking causes cancer. Everyone pretty much accepts the high rate of cancer in smokers as proof but in reality there are to many variables in each persons life to attribute their cancer to the cigarette with 100% certainty.

Smoking doesn't cause cancer. It increases the odds you might get it.

 

[magnifier661]

Smoking doesn't cause cancer. It increases the odds you might get it.

100% accurate!

 

[jlprk]

You can never prove these things to the absolutness required to claim the money. Creationist love to use sciences strength of not dealing in absolutes against them and then laud it over them as proof.

Most judges would accept proof within the extreme limits of probability required by science to be considered proven. It is easy to prove that 6000 years isn't enough time for the world to arrive in its present state. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 lines of evidence--biology, geology, and astronomy--so there must be more, and you only need one. But $10,000 wouldn't cover attorney fees.

 

[magnifier661]

Most judges would accept proof within the extreme limits of probability required by science to be considered proven. It is easy to prove that 6000 years isn't enough time for the world to arrive in its present state. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 lines of evidence--biology, geology, and astronomy--so there must be more, and you only need one. But $10,000 wouldn't cover attorney fees.

It would require roughly 2 hours of scientific research to sway any judge the earth is older than 10k years. Only way it was sooner is ifs supreme being had the ability; outside the natural laws of this universe to guide the process along.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Don't cigarettes contain carcinogens? Don't carcinogens cause cancer? Maybe you can't prove why a specific person has cancer, but you can prove that smoking causes cancer on the basis of reasonable scientific probability. That's all you have to prove in court for a civil claim is the preponderance of evidence, not a certainty.

 

[magnifier661]

Don't cigarettes contain carcinogens? Don't carcinogens cause cancer? Maybe you can't prove why a specific person has cancer, but you can prove that smoking causes cancer on the basis of reasonable scientific probability. That's all you have to prove in court for a civil claim is the preponderance of evidence, not a certainty.

No cancer is a mutation of our own cells. The mutation occurs when the system is stressed. More stress and more chances of cancer developing. There have been studies that cancer isn't even hereditary. This is why the people in low population areas like in north western china live for so long.

The carcinogen is a tool in creating system stress in the body.

Example: if you smoke like crazy; you have a higher risk of cancer than the healthy good diet person. Not because the cigarette creates cancer; but it puts stress on the system for itself to mutate.

 

[jlprk]

This explains why a loving God provided us with tobacco.

 

[magnifier661]

This explains why a loving God provided us with tobacco.

Heck yeah!!!! Us Christians want to hurry up and die to be with god!

 

[Denny Crane]

Don't cigarettes contain carcinogens? Don't carcinogens cause cancer? Maybe you can't prove why a specific person has cancer, but you can prove that smoking causes cancer on the basis of reasonable scientific probability. That's all you have to prove in court for a civil claim is the preponderance of evidence, not a certainty.

The field of medicine is hugely about statistics. Human trials are all about establishing a statistical link between a drug or treatment and a result. If you have cancer, the doctor will tell you the survivability rate beyond 5 years is X%. All statistics.

If cigarettes caused cancer, then everyone who smoked them would get cancer.

What they know is that those who do smoke get cancer at much higher rates than those who don't. But there are obviously other factors involved - like environment or genetics.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Disprove Genesis? Impossible! I'm listening to them NOW!

 

[Denny Crane]

The question is to disprove Genesis literally happened. The age of the earth is irrelevant.

What's relevant is if God said, "let there be light" and there was light.

 

[magnifier661]

The question is to disprove Genesis literally happened. The age of the earth is irrelevant.

What's relevant is if God said, "let there be light" and there was light.

All kidding aside. This guy is a Charlatan. He is only using this as publicity so his peeps will say "You fight the good fight!" and his name is in the spotlight.

Jesus is not impressed.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I don't know. He may be in for the publicity or he may not. But disproving Genesis with real scientific fact could prove difficult.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't know. He may be in for the publicity or he may not. But disproving Genesis with real scientific fact could prove difficult.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Since there is no way to scientifically prove God exists; then how can anyone prove Genesis didn't happen?

I made a joke that one could use 2 hours of scientific research to sway judges to believe the universe is 13+ billion years old; but they would have no way of proving there isn't a supernatural being that resides outside the natural laws of this universe. If that supernatural being exists; then 10k years is easy for him/her/it. They could make things happen quicker than a natural occurrence.

 

[blazerboy30]

Proving causality is impossible except for in human-derived concepts like math. The only reason proofs can be performed in math is because we've defined the constructs. You can't prove causality in anything in physics or biology that we didn't define ourselves.