Jump to content


Life Science Prize.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2005 - 12:04 AM

Another creationist puts up money for evolution to be proven.

Rules for the Life Science Prize
1. The evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
2. The creationist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
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.
6. The preponderance of evidence prevails.
7. At the end of the trial, the judge hands the prevailing party both checks.
8. The judge is a superior court judge.
9. The venue is a courthouse.


And he has personally challenged these people.

Debate Dodgers List as of November 2004.

A debate dodger is a creation basher who declines “to put money where the mouth is.”
This list is kept by public school creationist, Mr. Karl Priest (kcpriest@aol.com).
1. Dr. Massimo Pigliucci. Atheist and science professor, Tennessee University. (3-11-02)
2. Mr. Andre H. Artus. Atheist. No credentials provided.
3. Mr. Lee Bowen. Atheist. No credentials provided.
4. Dr. Angela Ridgel. Geneticist, Case Western Reserve University.
5. Mr. Dan Radmacher. Editorial page editor, Charleston Gazette.
6. Dr. James Paulson. Biochemist, University of Wisconsin.
7. Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Physicist, Case Western University.
8. Dr. Dennis D. Hirsch. Law professor, Capital University.
9. Mr. John Rennie. Editor, Scientific American. Author of ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.’
10. Dr. Barbara Forrest. Professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana.
11. Dr. Steve Rissing. Professor in the Department of Evolution at Ohio State University.
12. 12. Dr. Eugenie Scott. Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education,
misnamed National Center for Anti-Science Indoctrination.
13. Dr. Michael Shermer. Founder/director of the Skeptics Society.
14. Dr. Richard Dawkins. Oxford University, Professor of Public Understanding of Science.
15. Dr. Francisco J. Ayala. Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Professor of Philosophy, School of Humanities, University of California, Irvine.
16. Dr. Joe Meert, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida.
17. Dr. Kenneth R. Miller. Professor of Biology, Brown University.
18. Dr. Lawrence S. Lerner. Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, California State University, Long Beach, author of Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States, which was published in 2000 by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (http://www.edexcellence.net).
19. Dr. Adrian L. Melott. Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Fellow, American Physical Society.
20. Dr. Stephen W. Hawking. Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University.
21. Marilyn vos Savant. Listed in the Guinness Book of World Records Hall of Fame for " Highest IQ."
22. Dr. Douglas Theobald, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado at Boulder, claims to have "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" which establishes "The Scientific Case for Common Descent."
23. Dr. Keith Carmichael. Chemical Engineer-DOW (retired).
24. Dr. Daniel C. Dennett. Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University.
25. Dr. Peter Atkins. Chemistry, Oxford University, England.
26. Dr. Michael Ruse. Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University.
27. Dr. Steven W. Squyres. Professor of Astronomy, Cornell University, and leading NASA
scientist in the search for extra-terrestrial life.
28. Dr. Wilfred A. Elders. Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of California, Riverside.
29. Mr. Bill Nye. The Science Guy.
30. Dr. William Provine. Professor of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University.
31. Mr. Ed Blayton. Internet evolutionism activist.
32. Dr. Marshall Berman. Former New Mexico SBE member and Sandia physicist.
33. Ms. Amanda Chesworth. Former president of Internet Infidels, leader of the Committee for
the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Young Skeptics, CSICOPYS, and
crusader for establishing a Darwin Day.
34. Dr. Michael Zimmerman. Dean of the College of Letters and Science, Professor of Biology, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, ecologist, newspaper columnist, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
35. Mrs.Sharon Begley. Science Editor of the The Wall Street Journal, formerly Senior Editor at Newsweek magazine for 25 years.
36. Dr. Brian Leiter. Joseph D. Jamail Centennial Chair in Law, Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Law & Philosophy Program, University of Texas.
37. Dr. John H. Marburger, III. Science Adviser to the President and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
38. Chairman Professor Urban Ungerstedt, Deputy Chairman Professor Sten Grillner, Secretary Professor Hans Jornvall. Nobel Prize Assembly, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
39. Dr. Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus. Harvard University.
40. Mr. Richard Carrier. Secular Web editor, Ph. D. candidate. Columbia University.
41. Dr. Edward O. Wilson. Pellegrino University Research Professor. Harvard University.
42. Dr. John F. Haught. Thomas Healey Professor of Theology. Georgetown University.
43. Dr. John S. Lemberger, University of Wisconsin Madison, Graduate Program Coordinator, Science/Environmental Education
44. Dr. Richard G. Colling. Science Professor, Olivet Nazarene University, Author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator. (Theistic evolutionist).
45. Dr. Darrel R. Falk. Science Professor, Point Loma Nazarene University, Author of Coming to Peace With Science. (Theistic evolutionist)
46. Rev. Barry W. Lynn. Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Led the evolutionists in the William Buckley Firing Line Debate on Creation vs Evolution, December 19, 1997.
47. Dr. Wesley R. Elsberry. Information Project Director and a featured speaker for the National Center for Science Education, misnamed National Center for Anti-Science Indoctrination.
48. Mr. Eric Hildeman. Author of Creationism: The Bible Says No!, which he claims " marks the beginning of the end for creationism in America".
49. Rev. Lenny Flank. Creator of "Creation 'Science' Debunked"
http://www.geocities.com/lflank. He claims that Creation Scientists represent "the single greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the United States today."
50. Dr. Greg Forbes. Course Director for the National Science Foundation's Chautauqua course on evolution & evolution education for college & university professors. He also serves on the Editorial Board of Skeptic Magazine.
51. Counselor Pedro L. Irigonegaray. Kansas attorney for the evolutionists on the Kansas State Board of Education. In court in Topeka, Kansas, from May 5 to 7, 2005, 17 Ph.D.’s testified that scientific evidence supported Intelligent Design whereas the evolutionists completely defaulted because, like their attorney, they had no scientific evidence.
52. Edward T. Babinski. B. S. biology. His website is, "From Young Earth Creationist to Evolutionist: Your friendly neighborhood "anti-christian's" intellectual journey.”
53. Dr. Larry Mai. Assistant Professor Anthropology and Biology, California State University, Long Beach.
54. Dr. Richard Benson. Academic Dean, St. John’s Seminary, Camarillo, CA.
55. James Randi. Educational foundation expert on paranormal, pseudoscientific and supernatural, except as they apply to evolution.
56. Barry Hearn. Junk Science blogger.
57. Bishop John Shelby Spong. Christianity for the Third Millennium.


He has also challenged organizations that defend evolution.

Organizations, Departments, Universities
All members were challenged.
1. Case Western Reserve University. Entire faculty via 15 department heads.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
3. National Center for Science Education, “Steves” Group.
4. West Virginia University. Seventeen (17) signatories of a secret letter attempting to influence the
West Virginia Board of Education to censor any criticism of evolution..
5. Marshall University. About 60 faculty members of the School of Science.
6. California State University, Long Beach. College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics.
7. University of California, Irvine. Eleven of the professors of evolutionism.
8. Oxford University (England) All identified professors of evolution.
9. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
10. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). Over 40 officials. Spokesman, Dr. Gerald F.
Wheeler, Executive Director, admitted that evolution never existed.
11. Seven presidents of various geological societies that sought the censorship of a Young Earth Creation Grand Canyon book in a 16 December letter to Grand Canyon National Park: William I. Ausich (Paleontological Society), Robert E. Dickinson (American Geophysical Union), Cathryn A. Manduca (National Association of Geoscience Teachers), John C. Steinmetz (Association of American State Geologists), Hans-Dieter Sues (Society for Vertebrate Paleontology), Barbara J. Tewksbury (American Geological Institute), and Robert van der Voo (Geological Society of America).
12. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Dr. Joel Cracraft, President, and Dr. Richard O'Grady, Executive Director.
13. National Association of Biology Teachers (Wayne Carley, Executive Director; Cheryl Merrill, Managing Editor, American Biology Teacher).
14. Society for Neuroscience (organization of basic scientists and physicians who study the brain and nervous system)
15. Nobel Prize Assembly, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
16. Wisconsin Society of Science Teachers. All of the Board Members (N=12) were challenged.
17. York College of Pennsylvania. Nine (9) signatories to a letter pressuring the Dover, PA School Board to censor criticism of evolution and to censor Intelligent Design.
18. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 36 signatories to a letter pressuring the Dover, PA School Board to censor criticism of evolution and to censor Intelligent Design.
19. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. Dr. Christian Semper, Director; Mr. Randall Kremer, Public Affairs Director; Lucy Dorrick, Associate Director for Development and Special Events.


About the challenger:

Joseph Mastropaolo has a B.S., M.S., Ph.D. in kinesiology and a Post-Doctoral Research
Fellowship in human physiology. As Aerospace Physiologist for Douglas Space Systems, he published two monographs on life in space, one for humans and one for experimental animals. He taught biomechanics and physiology at California State University, Long Beach for 26 years and was the physiologist for the Gossamer Condor and Albatross human powered flight projects which earned a medal in physiology from the Royal Aeronautical Society for the Kremer cross channel challenge.

He also has 22 peer viewed papers that have been printed in several science magazines.


Joseph Mastropaolo is now going on t.v. with his challenge. I have already seen him twice on t.v. putting up 10,000 dollars to anyone who will go up against him in court. I believe he is going to t.v. because if he can't get anyone to do this, he will embarrass science and their pet theory, until they do.

Reference: http://www.csulb.edu...trop/prize.html

Could it be that the evolutionist are afraid that this guy will prove evolution wrong? Evolutionist are always complaining that creationist are stupid and uneducated. Therefore boring to debate. Now we have one who is very smart and very well educated. And they all run for the hills. I don't get it. :rolleyes:

Will anyone go up against this guy?

#2 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:27 AM

I think they have apopted a policy not to debate creationists anymore. Its to embarassing for them to lose. Instead they just wail about science vs. religion.

Terry

#3 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 October 2005 - 01:39 PM

Well after reading the site is sounds like a stunt.

Rule 6 states:

What is counted as evidence? Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid,
reliable and calibrated. Any indirect evidence must be calibrated to the standard to permit
evaluation for objectivity, validity and reliability.


But who gets to determine the standards, e.g. Scientists claims the fossil record shows evolution, creationist claims it shows evidence of a flood.

Rule 10 states:

Who determines the winner? The judge determines the winner. The judge is a
superior court judge.


A judge!? Why a judge? Would he not be more qualified in matters of law not science?

I think I would be more impressed if, instead of a monitory prize, the author demonstrate his acceptance of the finding and admit he will publicly recant his ideas of creationism, should evolution win the day.

Rule 32 states

Evolution is the development of an organism from its chemicals to its primitive state
to its present state


Sounds like they are trying to squeeze abiogenesis into the mix, this is the ultimate ‘out’ for this challenge, for obvious reasons.

Rule 33 states

Devolution is the sequence toward greater simplicity or disappearance or
degeneration.


There is no such mechanism (or word) as devolution, if the author can make up the rules like this he is sure to win by default.


IMO it’s a publicity stunt.

#4 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2005 - 09:57 PM

They are going to use the guidelines of word definitions in a book that all courts use to see if what science claims comfirms the meaning of the words used according to how they are defined. Not how science defines them, but how the court defines the use of each word. As well as presenting evidence that has to hold up to that definition without straying from it. The reason these people won't do it is because they know that science has changed the definition of several words to fit their explaination of what truth is. They also know that they would not be able to make this guy look like a jerk, because he is as smart as they are.

Same level playing field, and who whines? It seems funny that this is the complaint I hear atheist say about creationist. But when the playing field is either level, or above. I see the same exact thing happen. I guess the evolutionists have had themselves look smarter than creationist for years, they don't know what to do when one can out smart them. Besides, when your reputation is your knowledge, better not compete with those who are on the same level. Might find yourself without a job.

#5 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:28 AM

Rule 6 states:
But who gets to determine the standards, e.g. Scientists claims the fossil record shows evolution, creationist claims it shows evidence of a flood.


It is an unaccepatable implication that scientists and creationists are separate catagories. It is a standard defense of evolutionists to attempt to relegate any opposition as non-scientific or non-educated. In fact Christians have lead the way in the past (Galileo . . .Faith Facts
This site is Christian facts have no religion. Chrisitians (often in disproportionally large numbers) found in every current science and study of merit.

Rule 10 states:

A judge!?  Why a judge? Would he not be more qualified in matters of law not science?


In the courts today much (most?) of the evidence is scientific. Should we remove the judges because they studied Law not Science? One of the major roles of the Judge is insuring the rules of evidence are adhered to. Evolutionists require "flexbility" of evidence to make any of their arguments stand.

I think I would be more impressed if, instead of a monitory prize, the author demonstrate his acceptance of the finding and admit he will publicly recant his ideas of creationism, should evolution win the day.


This would guarantee no evolutionst response. The debate has been won with regularity over the past decade, yet most evolutionists refuse to recant. It is also not the $10,000 that holds the evolutionist away. It is the probability of such a wide scope public loss.

Rule 32 states

Sounds like they are trying to squeeze abiogenesis into the mix, this is the ultimate ‘out’ for this challenge, for obvious reasons.


Yes, obvious. Without the proof of originating a cell, of any sort, evolution fails. The two must stand together. Evolution CAN NOT occur without the first cell being formed from inert material by acccident.

Rule 33 states

There is no such mechanism (or word) as devolution, if the author can make up the rules like this he is sure to win by default.
IMO it’s a publicity stunt.

View Post


Results 1 - 10 of about 3,170,000 for devolution [definition]. (0.16 seconds)
This was a Google search. Lack of knowledge = knowledge does not exist, is an innacurate assumption.

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 October 2005 - 02:19 PM

They are going to use the guidelines of word definitions in a book that all courts use to see if what science claims comfirms the meaning of the words used according to how they are defined. Not how science defines them, but how the court defines the use of each word.


What a strange thing to do? Do they propose to win an argument by definition?

It is common practice in e.g. technical manuals, to have a preface defining meanings in context where a word can have more than one meaning. In this forum we acknowledge that the word “theory” can have two interpretations:

Science uses the word to mean an idea supported by evidence.
Common usage uses the word to mean “I have an idea”.

I don’t see how any court would take this claim seriously, the English language is far to dynamic for it to be tied down in such a manner.

I would put to you that the “legal language” be the first to be reformed :D

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 October 2005 - 02:46 PM

chance> Rule 6 states:
But who gets to determine the standards, e.g. Scientists claims the fossil record shows evolution, creationist claims it shows evidence of a flood.


It is an unaccepatable implication that scientists and creationists are separate catagories. It is a standard defense of evolutionists to attempt to relegate any opposition as non-scientific or non-educated. In fact Christians have lead the way in the past (Galileo . . .Faith Facts
This site is Christian facts have no religion. Chrisitians (often in disproportionally large numbers) found in every current science and study of merit.


You have a point, science is science no matter the source, one merely has to follow the method.

Indeed Christians have had a significant scientific impact, as have the Romans, Greeks, and Arabs. Christians perused science (paraphrasing) “to show the greater glory of God and creation”. This may have also been the motive for Arabs, but I’m don’t think it was for the Greeks and Romans. Science works no matter what the motivation.


Rule 10 states:

chance> A judge!?  Why a judge? Would he not be more qualified in matters of law not science?


]In the courts today much (most?) of the evidence is scientific. Should we remove the judges because they studied Law not Science? One of the major roles of the Judge is insuring the rules of evidence are adhered to. Evolutionists require "flexbility" of evidence to make any of their arguments stand.


Judges defer technical expertise to the experts in the field, the only challenge they may make is, is the person actually an expert? It’ unusual for a court case to get tied up in legal wrangling on who experts are (despite what one sees on TV).


chance> I think I would be more impressed if, instead of a monitory prize, the author demonstrate his acceptance of the finding and admit he will publicly recant his ideas of creationism, should evolution win the day.


This would guarantee no evolutionst response. The debate has been won with regularity over the past decade, yet most evolutionists refuse to recant. It is also not the $10,000 that holds the evolutionist away. It is the probability of such a wide scope public loss.


I was proposing the Creationist recant. Science regularly changes it’s position on subjects, there is no compunction to introduce dogma, the history of science is self evident in this regard.


chance> Rule 32 states
Sounds like they are trying to squeeze abiogenesis into the mix, this is the ultimate ‘out’ for this challenge, for obvious reasons.


Yes, obvious. Without the proof of originating a cell, of any sort, evolution fails. The two must stand together. Evolution CAN NOT occur without the first cell being formed from inert material by acccident.


No you are quite wrong in this, join the lively ‘abiogenesis’ debate.


chance> Rule 33 states

There is no such mechanism (or word) as devolution, if the author can make up the rules like this he is sure to win by default.
IMO it’s a publicity stunt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,170,000 for devolution [definition]. (0.16 seconds)
This was a Google search. Lack of knowledge = knowledge does not exist, is an innacurate assumption.


! I stand corrected. Seems the English language is more dynamic than I thought, I found devolution to have political connotations WRT “Irish Home Rule) and the delegation of authority (especially from a central to a regional government)

What I suspect the real meaning of devolution in the context of creation Vs evolution, is DE-Evolution. This is going to give the judges a hard time defining these definitions, isn’t it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users