Anyone interested in making $10,000? Debunk Genesis in court.

[AnCap Dave]

Source

A California man who believes the literal interpretation of the Bible is real is offering $10,000 to anyone who can successfully debunk claims made in the book of Genesis in front of a judge.

And for a man wanting to debate the very nature of human existence, Joseph Mastropaolo is taking a decidedly happy-go-lucky approach, saying he hopes the contest will improve future discussions on both sides of the argument.

"The evolutionists thereafter could read that transcript and make their case a bit stronger on the next one they contend against and we can do the same," Mastropaolo told the Guardian. "We can read the transcript and not have to go through the same process over and over and over again without any let up, without any resolution."

Mastropaolo's plan is to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account. His debate opponent would be asked to do the same. They would then jointly agree on a judge based on a list of possible candidates. Mastropaolo said that any evidence presented in the trial must be "scientific, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated."

For his part, Mastropaolo has a Ph.D. in kinesiology and writes for the Creation Hall of Fame website, which is helping to organize the minitrial. It's also not the first such trial he's tried to arrange. A previous effort, known as the "Life Science Prize," proposed a similar scenario. Mastropaolo includes a list of possible circuit court judges to oversee the trial and a list of those he challenged to take part on the evolutionary side of the debate.

The Creation Hall of Fame website describes the event as a "chance to shine" for skeptics of creationism. "Are you willing to participate in a contest to prove your point that the Bible is wrong and that we evolved? You could go home with $20,000 if you win!"

If he can find a willing participant, the "Literal Genesis Trial" would then be held in a courthouse in Santa Ana, Calif. Of course, the trial would not have any legal basis and would not be conducted by a state or federal government body. Instead, it would be what is known as a minitrial, a voluntary, nonbinding courtroom model for certain settlement cases. Nonetheless, a bailiff and court reporter would be on hand.

After the judge's final decision, the winner in the trial would take home $10,000.

"They [evolutionists] are not stupid people; they are bright, but they are bright enough to know there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial," Mastropaolo said.

I could use $10,000...

[Ibrahim90]

can I haz a stab?

seriously though, he won't award it: it's like Kent Hovind's challenge.

[evensgrey]

can I haz a stab?

seriously though, he won't award it: it's like Kent Hovind's challenge.

It's worse than that, actually.

In Kent Hovind's challenge, it would be possible, in principle, to pass all the hurdles required to win.

This thing can't actually happen, because you can't just ask a judge to adjudicate over an answer to any old question you want, it has to be something that passes a set of legal requirements for you to bring an actual case against someone before a judge is even allowed to look at it.  If it doesn't meet the requirement for a case to exist, the first judge who looks at it (in what is effectively a purely administrative law ruling) will toss the whole matter out for lack of legal controversy.  (Controversy in this sense means there's a dispute over some actionable legal matter, like exactly what a contract means or whether someone was wronged by someone else in a manner a court is allowed to deal with.  Courts do not and cannot rule purely on matters of fact with no actionable issues present.)

[MrBogosity]

You could pay a retired judge to mediate.

[evensgrey]

You could pay a retired judge to mediate.

No, I've checked Joseph Mastropaolo's web site, he specifies a Superior Court Judge to hear the arguments and evidence and render a decision in a courthouse, with court costs to be paid be the losing party.  That's DEFINITELY a claim that the fraud Joseph Mastropaolo thinks he can get something non-litigatable into court.