Caution: this is a long post and has many arguments that can start fights, and I am going to continue updating it as I have time to look through the evidence given by outside sources

Boing Boing is apparently offering $250,000 for any proof that Jesus is not the son of a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" to combat an offer from Kent Hovind of $250,000 for evidence of evolution. The only problem is that believing that Jesus is the son of God is a matter of faith and is clearly stated so in any Christian religion and therefore does not need to be proven. Based on many scientists and boing boing, evolution is fact and therefore should be able to be proved.

I would say that it is fact that Boing Boing does not understand the above statement.

I found these articles on Kottke's site

UPDATE: And to pre argue anyone's claim, Evolution within a species can be proven and has been, evolution between species has not and is soley a theory.

UPDATE 2: I am not stating that either should or should not be taught in any school, but I think my argument above pretty well combats the $250,000 offer.

UPDATE 3: And, now that I think of it, it would not be that hard to prove that Jesus was not the son of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Jesus was a real person, proven by the fact that there are records of a man named Jesus living in the areas in question during the time in question. Since he was a man, he could not have only have been conceived by a man and woman and since there is no evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster could impregnate a woman, or even exists, you could pretty easily come to the conclusion that Jesus is not the son of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, due to the lack of Flying Spaghetti Monsters to test this on, it is harder to provide proof for.

NOTE: They never asked me to proove that he is the son of God.

I think the point here is that the information necessary to PROOVE that Jesus is not the son of a Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be found and therefore this will be theory or a statement that has to be taken on faith alone. The same can be said for religion, except that a religious person would never call it theory and would always say that they take the fact that Jesus is the son of God based on faith. Why is it that scientists, or whoever the hell is arguing evolution, will not make the same assertation, they always call it fact.

UPDATE 4: As I read more and more of the arguments given on Boing Boing, I am more and more unimpressed with the whole thing. The first paragraph from the first article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up"

"When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere-except in the public imagination."

This is interesting. With the "mass of evidence" that they have that "established(s) evolution's truth beyond a reasonable doubt" that evolution is still a theory and is not fact. I think based on these statements from an author that did not take enough time to actually look at the facts, that we can discredit this entire article or at least chalk it up as a far to biased article about the state of evolutionary theory.