>>>>I don't want to have the debate here - but I find this rather interesting:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/26/creationist-bets-10000-nobody-can-disprove-genesis/
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>Again - I don't want to have the debate here (that means you Rick :) ) - but I'm wondering if anyone here see's something in this challenge's rules that would keep me from winning.
>>>
>>>You can't disprove Genesis - in shortened form; God created everything a few thousand years ago and he created it exactly as you see it including with stones that appear millions of years old, with the appearance that evolution might account for development of animals, with the appearance that stars are formed over millenia, etc. In essence a creationist will argue that God created a universe which looks billions of years old (including the science you will use to try and prove that it is).
>>
>>Riiiiight - but the problem is that starts with a conclusion and then looks for ways to prove it, as opposed to the opposite, which is how science works.
>>
>>Rule #5 here http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/chairmans-corner/ says:
>>5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.
>>
>>..and the other two rules that deal with this are:
>>3. If the non-literal Genesis advocate proves that science contradicts the literal reading of Genesis, then the
>>non-literal Genesis advocate is awarded the $20,000.
>>4. If the literal Genesis advocate proves that science indicates the literal reading of Genesis, then the literal
>>Genesis advocate is awarded the $20,000.
>>
>>Anyway the whole thing is really kinda stupid anyway. Why would anyone have a judge be the one deciding a scientific question? I guess it's because a scientist would make proper use of rule #5 and his list of potential judges will not. The whole thing is really rather amusing. These literal creationists are a relativity new breed and I'm sure that most don't actually believe what they're saying, Fact is
>>the consensus among scientists is that creation science is unscientific in both conception and methodology - so assuming the judge is a) honest and b) not a complete idiot - then I don't see how this can be anything other than some jackass trying to get in the news (even if it means making jackass of oneself).
>
>
>Science itself is based on a set of assumptions which you hold to be true but are not provable in themselves, they are axioms one holds to be true. Does this automatically invalidate science as a tool? No of course not. The science model appears to "model" i.e. offer a possible explanation, about many aspects of the observable universe (but not all aspects) and hence allows us to make predictions about possible outcomes in certain cases (but not others). It is a useful model for many endeavors. It is less useful in others.
>
>There is a large body of thought, philosophy, spirituality, etc. which deals with issues concerning what you can observe and measure, problems of the observer and the observed, subject-object relationships, consciousness, and other aspects which one may group under metaphysical issues that science does not handle well at all.
>
>Creationism is another model which explains the universe. One can believe it or not I guess. But in itself it is consistent albeit unprovable in terms of science. So the challenge cannot be won.

So when my hardware tech tells me my computer is powered by magical fairies, I'm being closed-minded when I conclude he's a lunatic? I'd say rather that I'm making a reasonable assessment of the situation. Of course I see what you mean by the challenge cannot be won. The problem here seems to be that someone is trying to argue philosophy against science - and for that matter trying to pass off the philosophy as science. If you're the one that thinks the cpu in your computer is actually a magical fairy that has tricked us into thinking its a cpu - well can't really get passed that. ..I mean you can't really convince a delusional person that they're delusional . Obviously there are those out there than could easily confuse this with science - thus again I point to his list of potential judges because it all depends on rule 5 - Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated...so if you get some bozo who can't comprehend the difference between philosophy and science the challenge can indeed not be one. Like I said before the whole thing is stupid to begin with because creationism does not have what it takes to be part of a scientific argument. I