• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Reverse JREF Challenge - prove Genesis wrong, get 10k

It's not a reverse JREF Challenge. If you fail a JREF challenge, you don't have to pay JREF a million dollars.

With this challenge, if you fail to prove your point, you have to pay them $10,000.

But does this mean that all you have to do is prove that snakes are incapable of speech in order to win?
 
Brian-M said:
It's not a reverse JREF Challenge. If you fail a JREF challenge, you don't have to pay JREF a million dollars.

With this challenge, if you fail to prove your point, you have to pay them $10,000.

But does this mean that all you have to do is prove that snakes are incapable of speech in order to win?
Click to expand...

I call dibs
 
So, there is a lengthy story that contradicts itself, and the goal is to show that a literal interpretation of the story contains errors?

..................
OK, rule 5 is "Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated."

I guess the whole thing will become scientists citing facts and then the literalists yelling "Objection, your honor, that assertion is not objective, valid, reliable and calibrated" while at the same time claiming that Adam's words are an eye-witness account and should be considered the purest and most valuable of all evidence.
 
Last edited:
Huh. Creationist sets the rules, creatonist picks the judging panel, creationist picks the opposing person . . . sounds fair and balanced to me.
 
Brian-M said:
It's not a reverse JREF Challenge. If you fail a JREF challenge, you don't have to pay JREF a million dollars.

With this challenge, if you fail to prove your point, you have to pay them $10,000.

But does this mean that all you have to do is prove that snakes are incapable of speech in order to win?
Click to expand...

According to the rules, this may be even more of a scam. You both put $10,000 into escrow. If one side or the other proves their case, that side gets $20,000.

So, if neither side proves their case, to the satisfaction of the judge, neither side gets paid.



And, of course, it doesn't say who gets the to pick the judge.


It's also interesting that the challenge says that the prevailing party pays court costs.

Meanwhile, didn't they do this in Dover, Pennsylvania just a couple of years back, with an even bigger prize fund?
 
Meadmaker said:
It's also interesting that the challenge says that the prevailing party pays court costs.
Click to expand...

Why am I getting the impression that these literalist folks will calculate the court costs after the decision. If the scientists win, then court costs might be $20,000. In fact, there is nothing stopping them from claiming that the court costs were $50,000.
 
Genesis claims that the first day was before the creation of the sun, or the earth, or anything else for that matter, therefore it's false. Give me my $10k
 
Ladewig said:
So, there is a lengthy story that contradicts itself, and the goal is to show that a literal interpretation of the story contains errors?

..................
OK, rule 5 is "Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated."

I guess the whole thing will become scientists citing facts and then the literalists yelling "Objection, your honor, that assertion is not objective, valid, reliable and calibrated" while at the same time claiming that Adam's words are an eye-witness account and should be considered the purest and most valuable of all evidence.
Click to expand...

If the offerer already had a reasonable concept of evidence then they would not be disputing evolution and consequently setting this stupid challenge.
 
The way I see this is that the evolutionists can't win, legally. Why? Because the challenge is to take Genesis *literally* - so any argument must by definition be based on hearsay: "I read..." (I wasn't present) etc.

Which is why, I expect, they have no problem proposing such a ridiculous "challenge".
 
It's a suckers bet and publicity stunt that this joker has been pulling in various forms for years. A variation on Hovin'd $250 bazillion challenge.

eta - Here's an excerpt from a HuffPo article discussing Mastropaolo's slimy tactics.
When I proposed that we agree on definitions of evolution and creationism as a starting point, things went awry pretty quickly. In response to my suggestion that we use the classic textbook definition for evolution (a change in allele frequencies in a population over time), Mastropaolo's second argued that "change in allele frequency is about as meaningless a definition of evolution as can be offered." Mastropaolo himself countered with the following: "evolution is the development of an organism from its chemicals to its primitive state to its present state." My Ph.D. in evolutionary biology didn't help me make any sense out of that definition. Mastropaolo went further and said that I "may not be competent to contend for the Life Science Prize."​



torifrog said:
"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. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/25/creationist-trial-bible-genesis-evolution
Click to expand...

I'll take him on, if the judge can be John Jones III.
 
Last edited:
Brian-M said:
But does this mean that all you have to do is prove that snakes are incapable of speech in order to win?
Click to expand...
No because the creationists might argue that they could talk before the Fall, and were deprived of that faculty only later. Can you prove otherwise? Better to remind them of Genesis 3:14
You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
Click to expand...
That is an assertion about the current dietary practices of snakes, and its accuracy can be tested by observation.
 
But snakes do eat dust. So do we. There are specks of dust on lots of things we eat. The Bible does not say that snakes will eat dust to the exclusion of all else all the days of their lives. Weasley thing, the Bible.

Ward
 
torifrog said:
The way I see this is that the evolutionists can't win, legally. Why? Because the challenge is to take Genesis *literally* - so any argument must by definition be based on hearsay: "I read..." (I wasn't present) etc.

Which is why, I expect, they have no problem proposing such a ridiculous "challenge".
Click to expand...


I think I see what you mean. If it's to be carried out like a trial in a court of law, you can't just present papers and textbooks supporting the stratification of fossils, you'd have to bring in paleontologists to serve as witnesses, explaining what they personally have seen first-hand.

Same thing with evolution, geology, ect.
 
Brian-M said:
I think I see what you mean. If it's to be carried out like a trial in a court of law, you can't just present papers and textbooks supporting the stratification of fossils, you'd have to bring in paleontologists to serve as witnesses, explaining what they personally have seen first-hand.

Same thing with evolution, geology, ect.
Click to expand...

Thanks Brian - and yes. As far as, say, fossils might go .. it could be an argument along the lines of "Did you watch/witness this process over 10 million years? No? Well it's not prima facie evidence then".

If you see what I mean.
 
wardenclyffe said:
But snakes do eat dust. So do we. There are specks of dust on lots of things we eat. The Bible does not say that snakes will eat dust to the exclusion of all else all the days of their lives. Weasley thing, the Bible.

Ward
Click to expand...
Very Weaselly. Gen 3:14 appears to be inflicting a special punishment on wicked snakes, not merely subjecting them to the same food contamination problems as are confronted by all land dwelling creatures. Thus we see also the special mode of locomotion mentioned in the same passage. I don't think the judge would be barefaced enough to award the creationist $10,000 because a puff of wind sometimes blows dust into his dog's food bowl.

Anyway in what order were things created? Humans before or after other creatures? Women after men, or at the same time? The first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other on these points. How do the fundies get round that one?
 
Craig B said:
Very Weaselly. Gen 3:14 appears to be inflicting a special punishment on wicked snakes, not merely subjecting them to the same food contamination problems as are confronted by all land dwelling creatures. Thus we see also the special mode of locomotion mentioned in the same passage. I don't think the judge would be barefaced enough to award the creationist $10,000 because a puff of wind sometimes blows dust into his dog's food bowl.

Anyway in what order were things created? Humans before or after other creatures? Women after men, or at the same time? The first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other on these points. How do the fundies get round that one?
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder what heinous crime the proto earthworm must have committed in the Garden of Eden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom