A court of law is not the venue - especially not when laughing boy is demanding a stacked deck; his rules for evidence are listed as "scientific, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated" which are pretty much meaningless in the context. The words mean whatever he sets his kangaroo court says they are; not in the context of actual research.
Proving the Bible wrong (or rather incorrect) is one matter (and an easy one.); proving evolution is going to be entirely dependent on what he defines 'proof' as.
"Well Suh, I do want to challenge the witness. Were you or were your family ever dinosaurs?""Cluck?""The defendant is too chicken to speak to the point.""Objection - the defendant is a chicken."
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.
Maybe he could prove the bible is correct and that we are specially created in a legitimate peer reviewed journal like Nature?
Quote:“Are you willing to participate in a contest to prove your point thatYou get to go home with $10,000 or your money and $10,000 of his money. (If you believe this I know several Nigerian princes eager to smuggle filthy oil lucre out of their country.
the Bible is wrong and that we evolved? You could go home with $20,000
if you win!”
Proving the Bible wrong (or rather incorrect) is one matter (and an easy one.); proving evolution is going to be entirely dependent on what he defines 'proof' as.
"Well Suh, I do want to challenge the witness. Were you or were your family ever dinosaurs?""Cluck?""The defendant is too chicken to speak to the point.""Objection - the defendant is a chicken."
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.
Maybe he could prove the bible is correct and that we are specially created in a legitimate peer reviewed journal like Nature?