$10,000 To Disprove Genesis

[magnifier661]

An agnostic is incapable of independent reasoning and decision making.

I have no idea what a mixed atheist is.

It was a mixed group of atheists and agnostics.

 

[ABM]

I have no idea what a mixed atheist is.

A mull-ato?

 

[Sinobas]

Technically speaking, a snake is not a serpent, though.

Well, it is in English. And in the OT, the Hebrew word "nahash" is used, which means snake.
So I don't know what you think a serpent is.

 

[Sinobas]

You're going to lose at this. Vocal cords could have existed then. You just lost your chance at $10,000.

Depends on who the judge is. If the judge is a christian moron....maybe...

But if someone born without eyeballs was brought in to be an eyewitness to a murder, and you used the argument that perhaps he actually did see the murder because he magically grew eyeballs right before the murder then had them disappear again, I don't think you'd convince a judge or jury of that.

 

[ABM]

Well, it is in English. And in the OT, the Hebrew word "nahash" is used, which means snake.
So I don't know what you think a serpent is.

Just having some fun...

But anyway...

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2011/06/the_difference_between_snakes_and_serpents.html

All this said, if God were to let Satan speak from a snake's mouth, then it would happen. Shoot, He made a donkey speak, too!

 

[Sinobas]

Just having some fun...

But anyway...

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2011/06/the_difference_between_snakes_and_serpents.html

All this said, if God were to let Satan speak from a snake's mouth, then it would happen. Shoot, He made a donkey speak, too!

Donkies talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives in the sky!

 

[ABM]

Donkies talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives in the sky!

Well, there ya go, then.

 

[jlprk]

today a year is 365 days. Back then, it was much longer. So 6000 years isn't what you pretend it is. Pay the man his $10,000 loser!

Maybe the judge isn't a space fan. He only reads about law. A good lawyer might convince him that the Earth goes around the Sun one-millionth as fast as it used to. So 6000 of today's years cover 6 billion of the Genesis years.

Could today's money be worth one-millionth of Genesis dollars? So I'm working for $6 billion? Or .6 cents.

Sly, there will be a test on this later.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe the judge isn't a space fan. He only reads about law. A good lawyer might convince him that the Earth goes around the Sun one-millionth as fast as it used to. So 6000 of today's years cover 6 billion of the Genesis years.

Could today's money be worth one-millionth of Genesis dollars? So I'm working for $6 billion? Or .6 cents.

Sly, there will be a test on this later.

God has magic, you see. He can make the earth go around the sun as fast as he wants to. Prove he can't.

Pay the man his $10,000.

 

[Eastoff]

Technically speaking, a snake is not a serpent, though.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/serpent

Definition of SERPENT

1
a archaic : a noxious creature that creeps, hisses, or stings
b : snake

 

[Eastoff]

God has magic, you see. He can make the earth go around the sun as fast as he wants to. Prove he can't.

Pay the man his $10,000.

wait... superman is god?!

 

[magnifier661]

God has magic, you see. He can make the earth go around the sun as fast as he wants to. Prove he can't.

Pay the man his $10,000.

You see some eternal natural energy made mass and you can't prove it didn't. Pay the man $10,000.

 

[magnifier661]

Depends on who the judge is. If the judge is a christian moron....maybe...

But if someone born without eyeballs was brought in to be an eyewitness to a murder, and you used the argument that perhaps he actually did see the murder because he magically grew eyeballs right before the murder then had them disappear again, I don't think you'd convince a judge or jury of that.

The funny thing about this comment of yours is you label all Christians as morons, yet I bet a million bucks that I can't find millions of Christians smarter than you. What does that make you? A slug? Lol

 

[Sinobas]

The funny thing about this comment of yours is you label all Christians as morons, yet I bet a million bucks that I can't find millions of Christians smarter than you. What does that make you? A slug? Lol

You want to bet me a million dollars that you can't find millions of christians smarter than me?

 

[magnifier661]

You want to bet me a million dollars that you can't find millions of christians smarter than me?

Absolutely. I will need to see the money up front. There is no sense betting a person with low capital.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

today a year is 365 days. Back then, it was much longer.

[video=youtube;oJfBSc6e7QQ]

 

[Denny Crane]

^^^ You know, all I was doing was saying what the guy making the bet/offer would do.

I think you can prove science's version is as correct as we can know, but you cannot prove that it didn't happen exactly as in Genesis.

There's zero evidence it did happen as in Genesis, but proving the negative (it didn't happen) is difficult at best, impossible likely.

 

[magnifier661]

^^^ You know, all I was doing was saying what the guy making the bet/offer would do.

I think you can prove science's version is as correct as we can know, but you cannot prove that it didn't happen exactly as in Genesis.

There's zero evidence it did happen as in Genesis, but proving the negative (it didn't happen) is difficult at best, impossible likely.

Sure there is. The universe traveled faster than the speed of light!

 

[jlprk]

I think you can prove science's version is as correct as we can know, but you cannot prove that it didn't happen exactly as in Genesis.

Again: 1) The man's challenge is to prove it to a judge, not to a logician or mathematician. The standards are, whatever you can get the judge to believe. It's done this way daily in thousands of courts.

2): It's easy to prove this negative. The goal is not to prove that Genesis is 100% false. Just prove that one tiny detail is unbelievable, and you prove that Genesis isn't 100% true.

 

[ABM]

Again: 1) The man's challenge is to prove it to a judge, not to a logician or mathematician. The standards are, whatever you can get the judge to believe. It's done this way daily in thousands of courts.

Very true.

 

[Denny Crane]

Again: 1) The man's challenge is to prove it to a judge, not to a logician or mathematician. The standards are, whatever you can get the judge to believe. It's done this way daily in thousands of courts.

2): It's easy to prove this negative. The goal is not to prove that Genesis is 100% false. Just prove that one tiny detail is unbelievable, and you prove that Genesis isn't 100% true.

The judge is ideal for the guy making the offer because the judge will limit the scope of his decision to the question at hand. He won't be swayed that Y is a better explanation than X vs. X hasn't been disproved in the least.

Pay the man his $10,000 loser.

 

[crowTrobot]

I think you can prove science's version is as correct as we can know, but you cannot prove that it didn't happen exactly as in Genesis.

you can if you specify that a certain level of extreme improbability equates to knowledge. if the dude wants to obfuscate by falling back on philosophical arguments about the impossiblity of absolute knoweldge there's no point to presenting evidence.

There's zero evidence it did happen as in Genesis, but proving the negative (it didn't happen) is difficult at best, impossible likely.

only true for things that aren't testable. genesis makes many explicit scientifically testable claims (all life on earth was wiped out except for on the ark 5000 years ago etc.) disproving a literal interpretation is trivial. if you take everything literally genesis even contradicts itself in a few places, which is all anyone should need to show.

 

[jlprk]

I've said from the beginning of the thread that this will be a cakewalk. With Denny's money and my brains, I can make some money and Denny can get free publicity.

 

[Denny Crane]

you can if you specify that a certain level of extreme improbability equates to knowledge. if the dude wants to obfuscate by falling back on philosophical arguments about the impossiblity of absolute knoweldge there's no point to presenting evidence.



only true for things that aren't testable. genesis makes many explicit scientifically testable claims (all life on earth was wiped out except for on the ark 5000 years ago etc.) disproving a literal interpretation is trivial. if you take everything literally genesis even contradicts itself in a few places, which is all anyone should need to show.

If you think it's a slam dunk, take him up on the offer.

I think it's a gimmick. A trap. It's intended to be a proposition you cannot win and would only make his side look good.

FWIW

 

[crowTrobot]

If you think it's a slam dunk, take him up on the offer.

I think it's a gimmick. A trap. It's intended to be a proposition you cannot win and would only make his side look good.

FWIW

it's obviously a trap involving philosophical obfuscation of some kind. i was just pointing out that genesis does state positive physical claims that are currently scientifically testable.

 

[magnifier661]

If you think it's a slam dunk, take him up on the offer.

I think it's a gimmick. A trap. It's intended to be a proposition you cannot win and would only make his side look good.

FWIW

Yep. It's absolutely a trap. It's bullshit because the judge may not have any scientific background and could be swayed. Who knows; maybe the judge is Christian or Hindu?

Anyone that thinks this is a slam dunk doesn't understand the court of law.

 

[Denny Crane]

it's obviously a trap involving philosophical obfuscation of some kind. i was just pointing out that genesis does state positive physical claims that are currently scientifically testable.

You are stipulating they are all tested already. Sorta. You have to disprove some part of it.

 

[crowTrobot]

You are stipulating they are all tested already.

they can be tested against existing objective evidence. if somebody claimed bigfoot is walking around downtown PDX you wouldn't have to go specifically look for bigfoot to know if the claim is true or not.

 

[Denny Crane]

they can be tested against existing objective evidence. if somebody claimed bigfoot is walking around downtown PDX you wouldn't have to go specifically look for bigfoot to know if the claim is true or not.

Prove there's no Bigfoot. No evidence for it, but no proof there is no such thing.

 

[crowTrobot]

Prove there's no Bigfoot. No evidence for it, but no proof there is no such thing.

that wasn't the point, and that particular form of obfuscation of the definition of proof won't work anyway, since as noted genesis does make positive physical claims. the only thing you can do is argue that knowledge itself is impossible in principal.

point was there already exists conclusive objective evidence that life on earth did not bottleneck 5000 years ago (etc) that you can point to in court. it's not like someone would need to do new testing to specifically deal with claims in genesis.