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

[Diogenes]

If science can have a cat that is both alive and dead, then religion can have conflicting creation stories that are both true.

And it was kind of a joke, I'm not sure the creationists are joking.

 

[Craig B]

Better yet, "dust thou art and to dust thou shall return" so all things are really dust so whatever the snake eats is dust.

Bible, more weasely than we can know.

Another problem. See Genesis 2:7

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So he wasn't a living soul before God gave the dust the breath of life. For Adam will return to dust, and cease to be a living soul. Gods live. People die, and that's an end of them, albeit that they look like gods. In their image. Snakes (which are really horrible, and don't look like gods!) seem to be able to renew their youth, by sloughing their skins, while god-shaped humans die. This has to be explained, and the Fall story is an attemept to explain it, in mythical terms. Genesis knows nothing about life after death. Neither does the rest of the Torah. Let the fundies explain that.

 

[dudalb]

Where are Spencer Tracy and Fredrich March when you need them?

 

[Wolfman]

Well, I think I'd tackle the issue that the Bible claims birds were created before land animals. We can prove pretty damn conclusively that there are absolutely no bird fossils that pre-date fossils of land animals...that regardless of the time-line being discussed, and regardless of the dating methods being used, land animals appeared prior to birds.

On the evolution side, there would be a huge preponderance of evidence; whereas the creationists would not be able to produce any scientifically admissible evidence that birds appeared prior to land animals. There is no need to prove the entirety of Genesis wrong...this single item, by itself, proves beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the preponderance of verifiable scientific evidence, that the literal Genesis account of creation is wrong.

Not that I'd actually take these guys on, it'll be rigged from the start...but were I to take them on, that'd be where I'd tackle them.


ETA: The idea that birds and fish were created at the same time comes from the ancient perception that they were related...one swam through water, the other 'swam' through air. The fact that some birds were equally at home in air and water (and perhaps the observation of flying fish) would certainly have led credence to such an idea.

 

[Belz...]

Reverse JREF Challenge - prove Genesis wrong, get 10k

Isn't that trivially easy ?

 

[dlorde]

Well, I think I'd tackle the issue that the Bible claims birds were created before land animals. We can prove pretty damn conclusively that there are absolutely no bird fossils that pre-date fossils of land animals...that regardless of the time-line being discussed, and regardless of the dating methods being used, land animals appeared prior to birds.

Clearly, the fossil strata were created deliberately to give that impression, whether to keep us occupied, or as a test, or by Satan himself to mislead us... (OK, I'm guessing what they'd say, but you get the idea).

Genesis doesn't need millions of years, just a week or so; fossil strata are not relevant to it.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

For that rule to make sense then they would need to clarify the scientific, objective claims that they believe creationism makes.

Otherwise the whole thing will just become an exercise in 'that's not really what they Bible says/means' or 'but it's not meant to be taken literally'

 

[Farsight]

Genesis is absolutely littered with errors and contradictions, see for example this article by punkerslut. Why anybody wastes any time at all on this or even gives airtime to this "wager" absolutely beats me.

 

[Aepervius]

Isn't that trivially easy ?

That challenge from that guy has been open for a long time, if I recall correctely, jsut like other similar challenge. The problem is that they always sneak in condition which makes it either easy for them to cop out, or impossible fir the opponent to prove.

In fact it is trivially easy to cop out in this case : god made earth 7 days ago and created the fossile as they are. Now try to provide evidence against that.

Which is why in all these thread here we always harp on, that the claimant has to provide evidence of the positive, because this is the sane way without much weaseling around, whereas creationist and other ******* with similar challenge always formulate it in a way the skeptic has to disprove something, which is the way you canw easel about anything and unicorn and dragon in garage.

Also remember he is not inviting to set it up before scientific or use a rational scientific process , he wants a judge and lawyer IOW : good luck with that. It *IS* a good trap set up to make good rational science looks bad and make faery tale looks good. You probably could not come up with a better set up, maybe have a congregation as jury or some kindergardener.

 

[tsig]

Isn't that trivially easy ?

Not in his court and by his rules.

1. The Bible is the Word Of God and is Always Right.

No matter what your opponent says refer to Rule 1.

Declare Victory and take the money 'cause Bob's yer uncle and he's also the judge.

 

[tsig]

Yes, but God was there and we have his word in Genesis.

So we only have god's word that he created the universe and we know it's true because it's god's word.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, just how exactly was there any light before the sun and stars were created? The last time I asked that of a creationist, they just rolled their eyes at me and walked away. Not a very convincing response, I might add.

The effulgent radiance of god's glory sufficed.

Thought everyone knew that.

 

[tsig]

Sounds like God wiffed that whole creation thing.

Even his most spectacular do-over, the Flud, didn't work out and he still had to come down and do it himself.

 

[tsig]

Apparently, this moron hasn't heard of the Dover Trial

The ability to ignore facts is called faith.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Proving scientific facts in court is the easiest thing imaginable. You just invite some expert witness to testify that it is a scientific fact.
You want to prove evolution? No problem, there is an endless supply of scientists with impeccable credentials that will testify that it is scientifically as a solidly proven as anything.
Forget about that silly sophistry. Just for example, how often does anyone manage to weasel out of a positive paternity test?

There's two problems.
He has different challenges going on and the propositions are all crazy. EG:
3. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.
4. If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion, then the creationist is awarded the $20,000.
5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.

If the case was about which is right, then the conclusion would be foregone. But how do you show that one is science and the other religion? That's not a scientific question but basically about semantics. The propositions are all like that.

The second problem is the con:
10. Court costs will be paid by the prevailing party.

IOW, once you get the $10.000 you can immediately hand them over and then some to pay for "the superior court judge" the rent for the location and so on. In the very least you end up subsidizing a propaganda show but probably you also need to shell out to all his loony friends that he has hired as expert witnesses.