Frequently Asked QuestionS
Short Answers (also see the Longer Answers below).

About the challenge and the evidence
1. What is The Life Science Prize Challenge? It is a prize contest. more
2. Why have a Life Science Prize Challenge? To test whether or not evolution is a
sham. more
3. Who is eligible to contend for the Life Science Prize Challenge? Everyone. more
4. Who do you particularly challenge? The most expert and vocal evolutionists. more
5. Where will the debate be held? The venue is a courthouse.
6. What is counted as evidence? Only scientific, objective, valid, reliable, calibrated, evidence. more
7. What does the winner receive? $10,000. more
8. How is the winner determined? By the preponderance of scientific evidence. more
9. Suppose the evolutionist does not want to debate against creation. Is there some accommodation? Yes. The evolutionist may debate against devolution. more
10. Who determines the winner? The judge. more
11. What happens when there is a default? The person is added to the Debate Dodgers
List. more
12. Can a Defaulter change his mind? Yes. more
13. Why won’t evolutionists accept the challenge? They have no scientific evidence. more
14. Why do famous evolutionists refuse to debate? They have no scientific evidence. more
15. How can you claim victory if evolutionists won’t contend? They lose by default. more
16. What if your challenge is totally ignored? Evolutionists worldwide lose by default. more

About the judge and court
17. Where will the trial be held? In a courthouse. more
18. Haven't courts ruled that creation is not science? No. more
19. Aren’t only science experts competent to judge such a trial? No. more
20. Was not the Microsoft trial about monopoly? Many computer science issues
applied. more
21. Isn't the legal system flawed? The system is sound. more
22. Didn’t the court fail on the O. J. Simpson trial? Preponderance of evidence
convicted him. more
23. How is the judge chosen? Whichever judge is available at the time. more
24. Why use a courthouse? It is the proper venue. more
25. Why won't you give details about the trial? It is evidence versus evidence. more

Definitions
26. Science is systematized knowledge derived from observation and experiments. The
data must be objective, valid, reliable and calibrated. more
27. Objective means without bias or prejudice, detached, impersonal, not subjective. Any
scientist following the protocol will obtain the same result at least 95 times out of 100
trials.more
28. Valid means it measures what it says it measures. more
29. Reliable means it measures consistently. more
30. Calibrated means it conforms to the standard. more
31. Create is to cause to come into existence; bring into being; make; originate; esp., to
make or design (something requiring art, skill, invention, etc.). more
32. Evolution is the development of an organism from its chemicals to its primitive state
to its present state. more
33. Devolution is the sequence toward greater simplicity or disappearance or
degeneration. more
34. Miracle is an event that contradicts known scientific laws and is hence thought to be
due to supernatural causes, esp. to an act of God. more
35. Religion is beliefs based on events that contradict known scientific laws. more
36. Debate Dodger is a vocal evolutionist challenged to contend for the Life Science
Prize who declines to put money where the mouth is. more
37. Defaulter is a vocal evolutionist who fails to respond, or fails to abide by the rules
for the Life Science Prize, and thereby becomes a Debate Dodger. more
38. Propaganda Essayist is an evolutionist writer or speaker without scientific objective,
valid, reliable, and calibrated evidence. more

Miscellaneous
39. Why are you so ardent about exposing evolutionism? It is the exact opposite of
reality, the exact opposite of the laws of physics, an inverted fantasy based on infinite
miracles never observed or experimentally verified. It fulfills the definition of a religion
and thereby violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America because it is taught exclusively in the U.S. Public Schools by means of
censorship. Every citizen needs to uphold the fundamental law of the land. more
40. How do you claim to be qualified to debate this issue? I have the necessary
experience. more
41. Why won't you be more specific? A specific question receives a specific answer. more
42. Why did you not respond to Ed Brayton's Blog? Propaganda essays are of no
interest. more
43. Why don't you enter an Internet written debate? Propaganda essays are of no
interest. more
44. Is it reasonable to think someone would have $10,000 to use to contend? Yes. I
have. more
45. How about matching a larger sum like $500,000? We’ll do it $10,000 at a time. more
46. Haven't peer review submissions settled this issue? Not with scientific evidence. more
47. Isn't the general public ill equipped to understand a debate like this? Not at all. more
48. Didn't God use evolution? Only scientific evidence counts for this contest. more
49. Can't we just say evolution “created”? That is an oxymoron. Evolution could not
evolve even one square or one round toothpick if given a head start with every tree on the
planet and 20 billion years to do it. more

Longer Answers
(with Karl Priest)

About the challenge
1. What is The Life Science Prize Challenge (LSPC)? The Life Science Prize
Challenge is a litmus test to distinguish bona fide scientists, those willing to contend with
scientific evidence, from propaganda essayists, those unwilling to contend with scientific
evidence. (top)

2. Why have a Life Science Prize Challenge? We do our best to help evolutionists
dispel their brass and bluff image. For the honor of evolutionists worldwide, we exhort
them to contend.

The Life Science Prize Challenge is all positive with no negatives for creation and
evolution. It also is not a 'Debate Dodgers' campaign." It is a challenge limited to
scientific evidence that excludes propaganda essays and endless brass and bluff
arguments.

In a conference of scientists, if someone makes a claim without evidence, he is
challenged to present the evidence or be quiet. The Life Science Prize Challenge does the
same thing in the most professional of scientific traditions. If an evolutionist bashes
creation by saying creation is religion and evolution is science, that person is challenged
with the Life Science Prize. If they do not accept, then they are put on the list like those
making claims in a science meeting without supporting scientific evidence, the No
Scientific Evidence List or the Debate Dodgers List.

An idea ought to survive or die based on its evidence, not its pounds of essay
pages.

The Life Science Prize, puts an end to the endless propaganda arguments of
evolutionists, which evidently are all that evolutionists have and which are a black hole
for wasting the time of bona fide scientists intent upon furthering the frontiers of
knowledge.

Biology is science. Evolution is ancient vitalism superstition as a religious belief
and that violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America. The public needs to organize and make evolutionists toe the science line and
not let them draw dissenters into endless propaganda arguments.
The choice is: indulge the ego of evolutionists and argue endlessly to no avail, or
insist on science and win every contest. (top)

3. Who is eligible to contend for the Life Science Prize Challenge? Anyone who is a
true believer in evolutionism. All personnel of an organization or university are eligible.
Any number may participate and collaborate. (top)

4. Who do you challenge? We only challenge those we feel are Propaganda Essayists.
We expose those who feel comfortable proclaiming the validly of evolutionism when
they can hide behind a newspaper, magazine, or journal article. When it comes to a
forum where their beliefs can be challenged and where they can be held accountable for
their statements they hide under an academic rock or behind a publication’s banner.
We have invited evolutionists worldwide bar none. So far, they explicitly, or with
silence implicitly, default.

5. Where will the debate be held? The venue is a court house. (top)

6. What is counted as evidence? Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid,
reliable and calibrated. Any indirect evidence must be calibrated to the standard to permit
evaluation for objectivity, validity and reliability.

The protocol for the presentation of evidence is also scientific, that is, clear,
concise and precise.

There will be abundant scientific evidence. The preponderance of evidence prevails. (top)

7. What does the winner receive? The rules are like those for a prize sporting event: the
winner takes all. At the end of the debate, the judge hands the winner both checks.

8. How is the winner determined? The winner is determined by the preponderance of
evidence.

9. Suppose the evolutionist does not want to debate against creation, is there some
accommodation? Yes, there is. The evolutionist may debate against devolution, the
exact opposite of evolution. Then the rules would be slightly modified as follows. The
evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge. The devolutionist puts $10,000 in
escrow with the judge. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and devolution is
not science, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000. If the devolutionist proves that
devolution, the opposite of evolution, is science and evolution is not science, then the
devolutionist is awarded the $20,000. (top)

10. Who determines the winner? The judge determines the winner. The judge is a
superior court judge. (top)

11. What happens when there is a default? The only defaulters to date are the
evolutionists and they are put on the defaulters list, the Debate Dodgers List.
Evolutionists rail against creation as religion and brag that evolution is the
keystone of biological science. We perceive this as brass and bluff and challenge the
evolutionist ranters, who then become silent or evasive. Everyone sees that they reneged
on the contest their bragging instigated. When someone instigates a contest, then declines
to compete, he has lost by default. Even six-year-olds know that braggarts and bullies
when called to compete typically default.

Evolutionists are exposed as indoctrinating the public with inverted fantasies from
vitalism superstitions 2,500 years old. Their default clearly demonstrates that evolution
exists only in their imagination.

Evolutionists must admit that they are peddlers of an ancient vitalism superstition
called, "evolution," that has a monopoly in public education with no scientific evidence
whatsoever and is thereby a state supported religion in violation of the First Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Evolutionists by default also admit that: (1) evolution has been exposed as pagan
Cebelese religion as practiced in Greece 2,500 years ago, (2) evolution is completely
absent in the universe today, always has been, always will be, (3) every item associated
with humans, animals and plants are creations, always have been, always will be, (4)
creation is science because it is observable by billions of people, trillions of times, over
thousands of years, always has been, always will be, and (5) they would be ridiculed
worldwide for defending in vain one of the oldest shams in history and losing
$10,000.00.

Furthermore by not contending for the Life Science Prize Challenge, evolutionists
leave undisputed that evolution is the phantom of the universe and implicitly agree that
evolution, in the realm of fraudulent misrepresentation, is world champion. Evolutionists
know well the disgrace of defaulting and the implications of being put on the Debate
Dodgers List. (top)

12. Can a defaulter change his mind? We offer extensions in time and open invitations
to reconsider. (top)

13. Why won’t evolutionists accept the challenge? Although we are ready with real
money, a site, and a judge no one has accepted the challenge. How could they when they
are limited to scientific evidence that is objective, valid, reliable and calibrated? If they
had anything they would contend and attempt to humiliate us to the world. It would be a
major blow to their adversary (creationists) if they won. The catch is that it works both
ways. The Life Science Prize Challenge, puts an end to the endless propaganda
arguments, which are all that evolutionists have and which are a black hole for wasting
the time of bona fide scientists and exposing more of the evolutionist frauds.
Evolutionists have no scientific data and never will. They invert reality and
proclaim an antiscience propaganda. We should expose them with evidence, not imitate
them with speculations and propaganda. Evidence settles issues. Speculations and
propaganda feed endless arguments.

Evolutionists will talk for a year but no one will contend unless they can talk an
opponent into a situation where evolutionists can cheat. Cheating is their only chance to
win.

We have $10,000 ready to place into escrow if evolutionists will match it. Then,
in a public debate before a judge, Dr. Mastropaolo and the best representative of
evolutionism will settle the matter once and for all. The standards will be objective
scientific facts.

The funeral dirge of evolutionism is loudly playing and Dr. Mastropaolo is ready
to cover the grave evolutionism has dug for itself. Will evolutionists sit on the porch and
howl with the pups or be big dogs and try to bite the undertaker?

Dr. Mastropaolo is putting $10,000 where his mouth is and after two years he has
not found an evolutionist worldwide, bar none, that will do the same.

The debate over the truth, or untruth, of evolutionism is a crescendo that is ready
for the grand finale. We are offering evolutionists a chance to silence creationists. Of
course, evolutionists risk engaging in the destruction of evolutionism once and for all.
The game is over. Evolutionists have been found out. The jig is up. Evolution is a
zillion times more impossible than the Blue Fairy, the Witch of the North, Aladdin's
genies, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Headless Horseman, and the mathematical
definition of impossible all put together.

Keep your ears tuned to the "No Sympathy Symphony" and watch evolutionists
dance. (top)

14. Why do famous evolutionists refuse to debate? Evolutionists are ordered not to
debate and are told why they must not contend for the Life Science Prize. They are
eminently unqualified and would waste their $10,000 entry fee.

A vocal proponent of refusing debates, Dr. Richard Dawkins has not published a
peer reviewed article in 25+ years, if ever. His late chum, Dr. Stephen Gould, did not
either. They are peas in a pod, both quack essayists advocating a 2,500 year old pagan
religion masquerading as science. Neither one of them has ever presented a scintilla of
scientific evidence. If you find anywhere on the planet one peer reviewed article in
support of evolution published in a science journal with objective, valid, reliable,
calibrated data by Richard Dawkins, or Stephen Jay Gould, or any other evolutionist
please let us know.

Propagandists like Richard Dawkins are out of touch with reality and hallucinate
that evolution is true. Such hallucinations so withdrawn from reality are the medical
dictionary definition of psychosis. His default on the Life Science Prize Challenge did not
go far enough. For the sake of the welfare of his endowed chair he also should seek, at
the earliest, medical help to prevent hardship for his family. We hope he gets well soon.
Dr. Dawkins is like the little boy hiding behind his Mommy's skirt-tail and saying,
" My Mommy told me not to fight." He hides behind the pages of Free Inquiry and makes
excuses why he will not debate.

Dawkins can try to spin it a lot of ways, but soon must face up to the fact that
evolutionism is spinning out of control.

Evolutionists have no scientific evidence. None. And that is the reason they do
not want to debate. Without evidence, they can't win unless they fix the contest. Given an
honest judge, they would make of themselves a laughingstock. They have everything to
lose because they could not score a single honest point. Their only rational choice is
default. (top)

15. How can you claim victory if evolutionists won’t contend? Evolutionists have no
evidence, not Star Wars, not swords, not pitchforks, not pointed shoes, nothing. When
they wisely default on the Life Science challenge it proves they are all bluff and no
science, or as they say in the Southwest, all hat and no ranch.
Now, you say you have a jumping frog that can beat our jumping frog but you
refuse to put you money where your mouth is. Or you say you have a runner who can
beat our runner or a jumper who can jump higher than our jumper. Well, let's put them on
a level playing field and see. The proof is in the results of the contest. The contest settles
the issue with finality. Hot air contests never end. The Super Bowl and the World Series
are not decided with hot air essays.

If evolutionists were so sure of their position they would debate. (top)

16. What if your challenge is totally ignored? Silence is not "golden"--in this case
silence is YELLOW. See FAQ: How can you claim victory if no one will contend for
the Life Science Prize?

About the Judge and the Court
17. Where will the trial be held? In a courthouse. (top)

18. Haven't courts ruled that creation is not science? Previous court decisions are not
relevant to the Life Science Prize Challenge.
See http:www.pathlights.com/ce_encylopedia/22sch03.htm
Also see http://nwcreation.net/trials.html

19. Aren’t only science experts competent to judge such trial? Judges may not be
experts in all the fields upon which they preside. Experts submit the evidence. The judge
must be unbiased to objectively weigh the evidence and render a just verdict.
Judges, not computer experts, tried the Microsoft case. That case required the
assessment of much technical computer science evidence.

The Life Science Prize trial would examine scientific, objective, valid, reliable,
calibrated, evidence and reach a verdict based upon the preponderance of that evidence.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence.

Doesn't a debate involve two experts? Isn't a judge trained to weigh evidence? If the
evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, isn't it easy for a child to see, let alone a
judge? Or are evolutionists afraid a judge would see that what is presented to school
children as evidence doesn't meet the qualifications?

An evolutionist may say, "Sorry, but assessment of evidence relevant to this
debate requires scientific expertise, not judicial expertise." In other words, he does not
want the court judge to judge the debate. So, we explain why the judge is imminently
qualified: A judge hears the biomechanical evidence in an auto accident without being an
expert biomechanist. He hears ballistics evidence in a murder trial without being an
expert in ballistics or murder. He hears evidence on endangered species of plants and
animals without being an expert in botany or zoology. In a criminal case, he knows how
to score the evidence beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case on the preponderance
of evidence. Obviously, those are the qualifications of choice for a debate scored on the
evidence.

That is why the court judge is the best person to judge the debate. That shows that
scientific expertise is not necessary. If it were, then we would need an enormous supply
of judges in an enormous number of expert areas. Now, the evolutionists have no excuse.
The Life Science Prize Challenge has the perfect judge in the perfect facility, the Old
Court House, with the perfect rules for judging the evidence. Now, they can't hide behind
some lame excuse and they must default because they have no evidence and they'll lose
their money if they are dumb enough to debate.

The judge must be competent and fair. That goes without saying in any event like
this. Because it will be fair is why they won't contend. They can't win a fair contest. No
matter what concessions are made, none of them will contend. They are an 800 lb man
unable to get out of bed complaining about the judges for a marathon. He will insist on
the finish line for him being directly under the starting line. When the crane lowers him
to the starting line he'll be the first to finish without ever having to take a step.
Just say: "It will be fair," and they won't contend. They can't win a fair contest
and they know it. (top)

20. Was not the Microsoft trial about monopoly? This is an attempt to gloss over how
that decision had to be determined. Did Microsoft design Windows so the computer
would crash or have its modem disabled if someone took out the Microsoft browser,
Internet Explorer, and put in Netscape? Was Windows purposefully designed to militate
against application programs that were not by Microsoft? The judge presiding at the
Microsoft trial had to preside over scientific issues probably more technical than those in
a creation vs evolution trial. (top)

21. Isn't the legal system flawed? Someone may pretend there are flaws, which damn
the legal system, the Life Science Prize Challenge, and the method of choice to
objectively settle a culture's critical disputes. Their pretense reveals a lack of knowledge
and understanding about the American and scientific systems based upon rules of law and
evidence. (top)

22. Didn't the court fail on the O. J. Simpson trial? The example lacks some
accuracy. O. J. was acquitted in the criminal trial because police stupidity did not permit
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In the civil trial, which is on preponderance of
evidence, O. J. was convicted. The police failed, not the judge.

There were two O. J. trials, one criminal, one civil. There were two different
purposes, two different trials, two different sets of rules, two different verdicts, both
correct and appropriate. The criminal must be convicted "beyond reasonable doubt." The
civil trial is determined on the "preponderance of evidence." O. J. was rightly acquitted
as a criminal because there was reasonable doubt. He was rightly convicted in the civil
trial because the preponderance of evidence was clearly for conviction. Justice was done
according to the rules. There are no "different interpretations," no "different conclusions."
The system worked as specified by law.

The Life Science Prize Challenge is determined on the "preponderance of
evidence," like a civil trial. As in any trial there are rules for evidence. The Prize's rules
are that the evidence be objective, valid, reliable and calibrated. These have been defined
in the science literature and will be presented to the court. The judge will admit evidence
accordingly and render a judgment based on the preponderance of the evidence as he
does in any civil trial. It is all straight forward, firmly established, thoroughly tested, no
tricks, no excuses, ideal to separate hot air from evidence and to settle it in a scholarly,
unbiased, professional manner. Evidence, not presentation, is what counts. The legal
apparatus is eminently suited for the task. (top)

23. How is the judge chosen? Whichever judge is available must confirm that he can be
completely objective, that he thoroughly understands the rules for counting evidence, that
he will strictly rule according to those rules, and he must be acceptable to both sides.
The judge would be a Superior Court judge that would be able to take the case
without bias, which is the usual condition for a trial. In addition, the judge would be
acceptable to both sides prior to the trial, which is also the usual condition for a trial.
There will be no impediment on this issue.
Courts have rules on recusing judges. If necessary, those rules shall apply.

24. Why use a courthouse? Judges rule in courthouses. (top)

25. Why won't you give details about the trial? Most questions are answered in the
FAQ section. If anyone places the required $10,000 in escrow we will be happy to
negotiate details. Contenders must confirm they are ready to contend pending some
clarification of some details.

Definitions
26. Science is systematized knowledge derived from observation and experiments. The
data must be objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.

27. Objective means without bias or prejudice, detached, impersonal, not subjective. Any
scientist following the protocol will obtain the same result at least 95 times out of 100
trials. (top)

28. Valid means it measures what it says it measures.

29. Reliable means it measures consistently.

30. Calibrated means it conforms to the standard.

31. Create is to cause to come into existence; bring into being; make; originate; esp., to
make or design (something requiring art, skill, invention, etc.). (top)

32. Evolution is the development of an organism from its chemicals to its primitive state
to its present state.

33. Devolution is the sequence toward greater simplicity or disappearance or
degeneration.

34. Miracle is an event that contradicts known scientific laws and is hence thought to be
due to supernatural causes, esp. to an act of God. (top)

35. Religion is beliefs based on events that contradict known scientific laws.

36. Debate Dodger is a vocal evolutionist challenged to contend for the Life Science
Prize who declines to put money where the mouth is.

37. Defaulter is a vocal evolutionist who fails to respond, or fails to abide by the rules
for the Life Science Prize, and thereby becomes a Debate Dodger.

38. Propaganda Essayist is an evolutionist writer or speaker without scientific objective,
valid, reliable, and calibrated evidence. (top)

MISCELLANEOUS
39. Why are you so ardent about exposing evolutionism? It is the exact opposite of
reality, the exact opposite of the laws of physics, an inverted fantasy based on infinite
miracles never observed or experimentally verified. It fulfills the definition of a religion
and thereby violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America because it is taught exclusively in the U.S. Public Schools by means of
censorship. Every citizen needs to uphold the fundamental law of the land.
The idea of evolution was invented 2,500 years ago in Greek mythology. Darwin
plagiarized, Haeckel falsified, Huxley propagandized, the public schools internalized, the
kids have been psychoticized, and any alternative is censored. To represent evolution as
science is a travesty that must be corrected.

Evolutionists say, "Evolution is a fact. The theories may vary, but evolution is a
fact." When anyone asks for the evidence, all that is given is propaganda essays with not
one scintilla of proof. That is why no evolutionist will contend for the Life Science Prize
Challenge.

Evolution is not a fact, it is not a law, it is not a theory, it is not a hypothesis, and
it is not a fantasy. The cow jumped over the moon is a fantasy because a cow can jump a
low fence. The grass ate the cow is an inverted fantasy. That living things die and rot or
putrefy to a pile of chemicals is a fact but that a pile of chemicals evolved to living things
is an inverted fantasy as far from reality as the human mind can go and that is what the
medical dictionary calls psychosis.

All things made by humans are creations as are all things made by plants and
animals. The entire universe is a creation and nothing in the universe is evolving, never
has and never will. The scientific mathematical score is more than a zillion (more than
10^4,000,000) to zero in favor of creation.

The sense of justice of all thinking people should be aroused about such a
widespread crime against the most fundamental law of the land. People everywhere
should be involved in organizing parents, students and law enforcement nationwide to
enforce the Constitution. (top)

40. How do you claim to be qualified to debate this issue? Dr. Mastropaolo has
published in peer reviewed science journals and has concluded on the basis of objective,
valid, reliable, and calibrated evidence that evolution exists nowhere in the universe,
never has and never will.

41. Why won't you be more specific? Evolutionists have been given the rules in
writing. They might pretend not to understand. They may also pretend that there may be
something unfair. Everything is objective, fair and straight forward.
The Life Science Prize Challenge is for people who are competent in simple
English sentences and who know the difference between right and wrong. (top)

42. Why did you not respond to Ed Brayton's Blog (http://stcynic.blogspot.com Key
word JoMo)? Ed Brayton's Blog site is an excellent example of the attempts by
evolutionists to engage in a fog of never ending chatter. Ed Brayton was challenged to
contend for the Life Science Prize. He chose to hide in the bog of his Blog.
Even before he was challenged, Mr. Brayton began to set up excuses for his
pending default and automatic inclusion on the Debate Dodger List, which consists of
dreamers who are forced to admit that evolution exists only in their very active
imaginations.

Mr. Brayton claims to have challenged Kent Hovind to debate for a million
dollars. If Mr. Brayton has $1 million to challenge Dr. Hovind, then he should have
$10,000 to accept the challenge to contend for the Life Science Prize.
If there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution then evolutionists, like
Blayton, should have no fear of losing $10,000. Perhaps 10,000 avid atheists would be
willing to lose one dollar each. Or 1000 deceived Darwinists will chip in the price of a
pizza to provide the $10,000 for the evolutionist side. Then the big risk to the true
believers in Darwin's delusion is that of being exposed as indoctrinating the public with
the non-science nonsense of evolutionism.

Mr. Brayton tried to hide behind Michael Ruse. That will not work because Ruse
is a propaganda essayist and was thereby forced to default (he is number 26 on the
Debate Dodger's List).

Another excuse Mr. Blayon offered was that the issue has already been settled in
court cases such as McLean v Arkansas or Edwards v Aguillard. According to Mr.
Brayton's logic all he would have to do is show up and win the Life Science Prize
Challenge by claiming precedence. What is keeping him from doing that?
Ed Brayton is just another evolutionist who bragged and was challenged on his
bragging. When Mr. Brayton reneged on the contest his bragging instigated he defaulted
and admitted evolution only exists in Never-Never Land. When a man calls for a contest,
then declines to compete, he has lost by default. Even six-year-olds know that.
Evolutionists have no evidence, not Star Wars, not swords, not pitchforks, not
pointed shoes, nothing. When they wisely default on the Life Science Challenge it proves
they are all bluff and no science, or as they say in the Southwest, all hat and no ranch.
He says he has a jumping frog that can beat our jumping frog but refuses to put
money where his mouth is. He says he has a runner who can beat our runner or a jumper
who can jump higher than our jumper. Well, let's put them on a level playing field and
see. The proof is in the results of the contest. The contest settles the issue with finality.
Hot air contests never end. The Super Bowl and the World Series are not decided with
hot air on web sites.

If Ed Brayton is so sure of his position he would debate. (top)

43. Why don't you enter into an Internet written debate? That alternative is unruly,
endless hot air arguments.

44. Is it reasonable to think someone would have $10,000 to use to contend? The
amount of $10,000 is a reachable sum and still a sum that most people consider large.
For a university, perhaps ten of the university's best science professors could each get 100
of their students to chip in the price of a pizza to provide the $10,000 for the evolutionist
side. An organization like the National Science Teachers Association has around 55,000
members who could afford about 18 cents ($0.18) each to provide the $10,000 for their
side. If there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution then evolutionists should
have no fear of losing $10,000. (top)

45. How about matching a larger sum of $500,000 deposited with a law firm? Like
evolution, the $500,000 is imaginary and the law firm is imaginary. By contrast our rules
are real, the $10,000 is real and the escrow provision is real. If real, any bank will give
change and after the $10,000 is lost, we'll give the evolutionist a chance to lose the other
$490,000.00.

We think evolution is not science and have a real $10,000 to prove we are sincere.
If anyone thinks he has science to back evolution and $10,000 to prove his sincerity then
let's place both amounts in escrow and, as gentlemen, begin serious discussion of
agreeable conditions.

The funds must be on deposit. No promissory notes. (top)

46. Haven't peer reviewed submissions settled this issue? Peer reviewed science
articles published in scientific journals have concluded that evolution exists nowhere in
the universe, never has and never will. The problem is that evolutionists use propaganda
essays instead of peer reviewed bona fide science articles. (top)

47. Isn't the general public ill equipped to understand a debate like this?
Evolutionists constantly harp on how strong the evidence is for evolution.* Several polls
(Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(2):118 – 123, 1999 ) show that the large
majority of Americans do not accept evolution as factual. It's the average people
evolutionists have to win--or do they intend to pick on little kids in school and brainwash
them to "think" like Hitler Youth.**

The general public is equipped to understand that a car can rust and rot to a pile of
chemicals but a pile of chemicals will never assemble itself to a car without intelligent
engineering. A living cell can rot or putrefy to a pile of chemicals but a pile of chemicals
will never assemble itself to a living cell without mega intelligent engineering. A seven
year old can understand that.

*Two examples from the NCSE: The contemporary theory of biological evolution
is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. (AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (2002)) A theory in science, such as the
atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a
speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by
evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. (AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES)

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5322_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19
_2002.asp#aaas5

**Education played a very important part in Nazi Germany in trying to cultivate a
loyal following for Hitler and the Nazis. The Nazis were aware that education would
create loyal Nazis by the time they reached adulthood. The Hitler Youth had been created
for post-school activities and schools were to play a critical part in developing a loyal
following for Hitler – indoctrination and the use of propaganda were to be a common
practice in Nazi schools and the education system. Subjects underwent a major change in
schools. Some of the most affected were History and Biology.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazis_Education.htm (top)

48. Didn't God use evolution? Creationists with differing perceptions would do well to
substantiate their speculations with scientific evidence: objective, valid, reliable, and
calibrated data. In the absence of evidence, they should be honest enough to admit that
their speculation may not be more compelling than someone else's speculation. They also
should admit that the pressing assignment is to obtain the evidence.
49. Can't we just say evolution “created”? "Created by evolution" is vitalism, which
was disproven by the experiments, never overturned, of Redi in 1665, Pasteur in 1864
and Tyndall in 1877 (see The Rise and Fall of Evolution, A Scientific Examination, 2003,
pp. 9-12). (top)