Evolutionists: With all your "proof" of evolution, will you snag the $10k?

Interesting. I see there are no good answers by the atheists. I bet they're really shaken by his credentials; they are far from the "Wikipedia doctorate" atheists normally accuse believers of having (if we are lucky).

The evolutionists cannot win because there is no scientific evidence of Darwinian Evolution. They might win in a court of baboons, though.

EDIT: The evolutionist would be trying to prove a positive, not a negative. In fact, both sides would be. At any rate, the evolutionists would avoid this because they know the theory is based on Uniformitarianism--a philosophy, not a fact.

Reminds me of Kent Hovind's insincere offer. Every time someone wanted to claim the prize, he changed the rules. The proof had to be passed by a panel chosen by Hovind himself, and of course he'd choose people who rejected everything. What you had to do to prove it kept changing too - he actually told one scientist that the only way to win the money was to create an entirely new universe.

Those are publicity stunts only. The people making the supposed offer are completely insincere and they will make sure that the prize is impossible to win, no matter how much evidence is presented. They'll just put more hurdles in the way and keep changing the rules so no one can possibly get close to winning, then they'll crow and claim that means there is no evidence for evolution.

The one thing you can count on from creationists is endless dishonesty.

I would have to know who the judge is, and what the standards would be for 'proof.'

But yeah, if it were set up like an American civil court, I'd definitely take that challenge, but there would be a few thousand more qualified people than I to fully illustrate the case.

Humans were not on the planet before (other) animals.

Quite the opposite if anything, and there is a ton of compelling evidence.

Simply walk into the room with a print out of the talk origins website, or a copy of The Greatest Show On Earth

It's a gimmick. You cannot prove a negative, and it is set-up in order to give credence to the ridiculous creationist notion, given it's to "prove evolution and disprove a literal interpretation of creation" which in essence is to disprove a negative. Although Mastropaolo himself will be offering no evidence as to why creation is right -- It's a deliberate attempt to pit-fall evolutionists despite there being no evidence on Mastropalo's side of the argument, and creation science having never been published in any scientific journal.

And who cares anyway, science already won. See McLean vs. Arkansas in which the judge ruled that Creation science is a religion, not science.

>He says to date, more than 374,000 evolutionists, by individual or organization invitation, cannot be coaxed into revealing their scientific evidence.

Yeah, because things like Biology textbooks don't exist...

I think the real reason no one has done this is because no judge would accept this suit. It has no legal basis. It's all for show so he can make absurd claims like the one above.

I haven't bothered to read the fine print.

I have to assume that he has rigged the "court case", similar to Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge

Intelligent Design was shown to be repackaged creationism which has been deemed a religious creation story. It has been already occurred.

I would - in front of a non-bias judge that would be easy money!

Of course, if the judge was a creationist then obviously this would be a fruitless exercise.

Offering prize money is meaningless and cheapens the search for truth.

Anytime money is involved, there is the possibility of selective bias, greed, or downright fraud.

It's a trick given that he wants to reverse the burden of proof. He isn't interested in supporting his own assertions, he wants other people to try to disprove them.