Non-believers have no obligation whatsoever to "disprove" any absurd allegation. The burden of proof ALWAYS falls with the person making the assertion. Switching the burden to the skeptic to prove the negative of the assertion is a common habit among believers, yet is tantamount to an admission that they themselves can offer no proof whatsoever of their own assertions.

This is really a cheap parlor trick done solely for the free publicity.

Creationism, flat Earth and hollow Earth theories are almost always associated with religious convictions, and their proponents have always been able to cite Biblical foundations for their far out ideas. Problem is, the Genisis model isn't scientific in the first place, so how can we use science to disprove it? How about that guy find solid, scientific proof for his story first, in this case creationism?

1. Cosmic expansion and geology prove that the universe is way older than the Bible says.
2. Genesis chapter 1 verse 2: "Now the earth was formless and empty", but in verse 3: " “Let there be light,” and there was light."
The Cosmic Microwave Background (separating light and darkness in the universe) happened AFTER matter was created, not before, as the Bible claims.
3. Water-dwelling creatures appeared before land-born plants appeared, not the other way round, like the Bible says.

And the list goes on.

And the burden of proof will finally rest on him: If he wants to deny us the prize, he has to explain why his theory is a closer match to reality than our theory.

A "trial"? Who are the judge and jurors? What rules of evidence or standards will be applied?

Although we can only speculate on the rules of evidence or standards, but we can only use our imagination as to how far that would go.

how he keeps it might be amusing.

The story where gd created the animals and then created Adam? Or the one where Adam came first?

I guess they're both the absolute truth

Same problem.