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/

"....All evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated,...."

Anyway looking into this further (hey I could always use 10 thousand bucks) I notice that really what you have to do is "Prove to an “impartial” judge that science contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis and the money is yours." - which seems a bit different that disproving genesis. So what's to just keep me from bring an expert witness, say a geologist - and show a rock over 6,000 years old? Then I win right?

Only thing I can figure is that it's either a publicity stunt and he has no intention of actually having the 'mini trail' or that the judge is a bible thumper & thus the 'deck is stacked'. Looking into it even more I find out that the way the judge is picked is the guy gives you a list of judges to pick from.

I did track down a paper written by the guy here:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data2.html
..where he says things like this:

...."To test simply the alleged self-combining tendency of carbon, I placed one microliter of India (lampblack) ink in 27 ml of distilled water. The ink streaked for the bottom of the test tube where it formed a dark haze which completely diffused to an even shade of gray in 14 hours. The carbon stayed diffused, not aggregated as when dropped on paper. At this simple level there is no evidence that the “primeval soup” is anything but fanciful imagination."....

Rules and such here:
http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/chairmans-corner/

Well, he does say a literal reading of Genesis. ..soooo we don’t need evolution to show that science contradicts a literal reading of Genesis? If Genesis is literally true, then every human being on earth descended from a single man and woman in the recent past. If we can peg him down to a time span, then we ought to be able to easily show that there’s no way to account for the genetic variation among humans from a common ancestor only 6,000 years ago. And since judge’s routinely accept DNA evidence showing how related people are, the science there is open and shut.

So is the the same old nonsense? Do the rules mean if you can’t prove every last detail of evolution then the Biblical account of creation wins by default. Does it ever occur to these folks that simply attacking Darwin doesn’t prove their point, and they do indeed, need to prove what they’re saying? I’ll offer this clown a million dollars if he can prove invisible pink unicorns don’t exist. He won’t collect his money for the same reason no one will collect on his challenge.


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.