Date: Fri Oct 15 1993 20:29:00 To: Kevin Davis Subj: The creation science game EV

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Date: Fri Oct 15 1993 20:29:00 From: Dr Pepper To: Kevin Davis Subj: The creation science game 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)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank