The Dr Pepper Games
When you are ready for a break from humor, try The
Dr Pepper Challenges.
Date: 15 Oct 93 20:27:00
From: Dr Pepper
To: Kevin Davis
Subject: The anti evolution game
AREA:EVOLUTION
THE ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME
-----------------------
Here's an opportunity to see how good you are at refuting evolution
scientifically. That means using science, not faith. If you have faith
that evolution is false, that's great for you but has nothing to do
with science.
HOW TO PLAY
Just write a series of statements showing either inadequacy in the
basic tenets of evolution, or contradictory evidence.
It is not necessary to absolutely disprove evolution, just give us
something to rock conventional science.
Your statements will be evaluated and assigned points. 10 points wins.
PROCEDURE
1. To enter the game, leave a post declaring your intention to play.
You may start making statements in that post if you like.
2. You will then have 60 days to make as many posts as you like with
statements for the game. If you do not make 10 points in those 60 days
you will have to start over.
3. All posts in the game should have ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME as the
subject line and contain only statements relevant to the game.
Anything else will not be counted.
WINNING
I'm self (un)employed so i can't give away cadillacs or trips to
Hawaii. But if you can get 10 points your name will go on a public
list of succesful challengers of evolution, a list that is currently
empty. And i will send a $10 donation to the organization of your
choice.
SCORING
Type of Statement Points
Observation of spontaneous generation of a modern lifeform
either from nothing or from nonliving elements. 5
Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree
so well if the dates they show are wrong. 5
Evidence showing that all remains of Earth are younger than
1 million years. 3
Example of total genetic discontinuity between two species
considered closely related by conventional science. 2
Example of two species considered separated by over 100
million years of time by conventional science found to 2
be contemporaneous.
Example of a fossil considered over 2 million years old by
conventional science showing the exact same genetic makeup as
a modern member of the same species. 1
Correct statement of the theory of evolution. 1
Any other single statement showing you understand evolution. 1
Any quote from secondary sources. -1
Any statement mischaracterizing evolution. -1
Misunderstanding of the difference between theory and fact. -2
Misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. -2
Misunderstanding of entropy, order, randomness or
complexity. -2
Misunderstanding of the use of C-14 dating. -2
Misunderstanding of isochron dating. -2
Misunderstanding of nuclear decay. -2
Misunderstanding of the speed of light. -2
Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the
framework of science. -2
Misquoting or distorting someone's statement. -3
Mischaracterizing a disagreement on the hows of evolution
as doubt of the fact of evolution. -4
Appeal to your own ignorance "I don't see how else..."
is a description of your personal inadequacy, not that
of conventional science. -4
Outright lie. It doesn't matter if you didn't know it
was a lie. -5
Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are
responsible for looking these things up. -5
Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on
truth value. -5
GOOD LUCK
---
* Origin: I survived: Reagan-Bush, 1980-1992 (1:103/241)
Date: 15 Oct 93 20:29:00
From: Dr Pepper
To: Kevin Davis
Subject: The creation science game
AREA:EVOLUTION
THE SCIENTIFIC CREATION GAME
----------------------------
Here's an opportunity to see how good you are at presenting the case
for scientific creation. That means using science, not faith. If you
have faith that God did everything, that's great for you but has
nothing to do with science.
HOW TO PLAY
Just write a series of statements suporting creationism with hard
evidence and sound logic.
Do not attempt to disprove evolution. We shall assume, for the purpose
of this game, that evolution has been disproven and that there is now
a total void on the subject of biological life. It is up to you to
fill it.
Your statements will be evaluated and assigned points. 10 points wins.
PROCEDURE
1. To enter the game, leave a post declaring your intention to play.
You may start making statements in that post if you like.
2. You will then have 60 days to make as many posts as you like with
statements for the game. If you do not make 10 points in those 60 days
you will have to start over.
3. All posts in the game should have CREATION SCIENCE GAME as the
subject line and contain only statements relevant to the game.
Anything else will not be counted.
WINNING
I'm self (un)employed so i can't give away cadillacs or trips to
Hawaii. But if you can get 10 points your name will go on a public
list of succesful creationism expounders, a list that is currently
empty. And i will send a $10 donation to the organization of your
choice.
SCORING
Type of Statement Points
Concise statement of the theory of creationism. This has
never been done before so this alone is worth the game.
Remember we are looking for something that can be tested. 10
Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree
so well if the dates they show are wrong. 5
Definition of a "kind" and the criteria for differentiating
them. 4
Explanation of the "vapor canopy" theory. Address the
problems of atmospheric pressure and opacity. 3
Explanation of the "hydrologic sorting" theory. Address the
conflict between the proposed physiological distribution
and the observed phylogenic distribution. 3
Any testable prediction based on creationism 3
Explanation of the modern distribution of lifeforms. 3
Explanation of the observed changes in population makeup
over time. 3
Description of any experiment or field observation
supporting creationism. 2
Any quote from secondary sources. -1
Misunderstanding of any principle of physics -2
Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the
framework of science. -2
Misquoting or distorting someone's statement. -3
Nagative statement about evolution. That's not evidence
of creation. -4
Appeal to your own ignorance. "I don't see how else..."
is a description of your personal inadequacy, not
evidence for your position. -4
Outright lie. It doesn't matter if you didn't know it
was a lie. -5
Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are
responsible for looking these things up. -5
Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on
truth value. -5
GOOD LUCK
---
* Origin: I survived: Reagan-Bush, 1980-1992 (1:103/241)
[Top, Back]
