Will this be a payday for you?
Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution
The goalposts will move so much that in the end nobody will even know what sport the goalposts are from. Because of that, this guy will either declare victory on what he perceives to be the merits of his argument or he’ll declare victory because nobody wants to argue with a fool. It’s a no-win situation.
The sad thing is that there doesn’t need to be a conflict between science and religion. If you believe in God and that he created the Earth, he also created the laws of nature that science has discerned. Why these people embrace one half and reject the other half I’ll never know.
Yes, there does. Not only are religions full of falsehoods, but the habits of thought underlying religion are in direct conflict with those necessary for science. Science and religion are simply poison to each other by their very nature, even when their respective followers aren’t going after each other on purpose.
Ah, but I suspect the tricky bit will be getting them to agree beforehand what would count as proof.
They are not rejecting one half, they are attempting to unify the two, because they have completely misinterpreted the purpose and goals of each.
They have utterly failed to recognize that faith and science are necessarily mutually exclusive endeavors, like trying to score a touchdown in a baseball game: it’s both never going to happen and would not help their cause even if they could.
Even the religions that endorse and/or teach evolution, such as the Catholic Church?
But they’re not mutually exclusive, as I said. Belief in God implies acceptance of the laws of nature, as they were created by God.
It makes total sense to me, anyway.
Well I am an atheist but yes I can see that religion and science can be both true. Remember not all religious people are literal bible bashing fundies!
I can guarantee that the only judge this fucker would accept is one biased in his favour. He’d accuse me of the same thing, but the difference is that I’d actually be right.
They still constantly deny scientific fact in other areas, like lying about condoms. And even when they don’t, by its nature the simple existence of science erodes their power base, just as their simple existence erodes science. It’s like two different varieties of corrosive that consume each other being in the same jar.
Yep that is true but I still stand by my statement that they can coexist. Although no major religion could as they still believe in magic.
As I said I am an atheist and I still struggle with the “why” etc, not saying a bloke who walked on water will give it to me.
I would say that it’s like water and oil, they will always be separate but that doesn’t mean they cant coexist.
When they said “minitrial” was anyone else thinking “Salem?”
But surely you can see that only works one way?
Your position assumes the existence of a god. It is a reasonable compromise for believers, but from the perspective of one who does not make that assumption, it remains untenable.
Those who take the Bible as mostly metaphorical “truth” might be able to reconcile religion (specifically Bible-based religion) with science. Simply accept the Bible as being however “metaphorical” it takes in order to not conflict with science.
The preacher-man discussed in the OP, however, appears to be a Bible literalist, and he’s putting up literal Bible against science. There’s no way that Bible literalism can be compatible with science.
The issue of who picks the judge has already been raised. I’d also want to know how the “winner” is decided. Does the judge decide who won or is he just there to mediate the debate? Maybe Mastropaolo’s intent is to have a debate with a scientist and all he’s promising is that he’ll pay $10,000 if the scientist convinces him he’s wrong.
You know, this really sounds like a bullshit bar bet. What version of Genesis are they using? King James? That’s just a translation. What was the original? There were several IIRC.
How are terms going to be defined. “In the beginning” eh? What do you mean by “beginning?” Obviously we’re not talking about the big bang since I can easily prove that happened more than 13 billion years ago and from there proving the earth is a bit more than 6k years plus or minus a few billion shouldn’t cause anyone to break a sweat. You lose.
Wait, why are you waving a pocket watch in front of me and saying that I’m feeling very, very . . .
(Bolding mine)
What is the scientific basis for the bolded assertion? Until you actually have one, then science and religion are at odds in your worldview.
I don’t want to speak for the poster, but this sounds a little like the idea of the clockwork universe that was popular during the enlightenment.
I think the trick is in rule #5: “Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.” Calibrated?