Evolution vs. Creation Debate in Tucson, Arizona May 10

Calvery Chapel Tucson and Fellowship of Christian Athletes ^ | May 10, 2003 | Fellowship of Christian Athletes

[\/\/ayne]

Click on the image below for a PDF flyer



click here to get Adobe Acrobat Reader which reads PDF files

Saturday May 10, 2003

All Saturday meetings except the debate will be held at Calvary Tucson’s East Campus 8725 E. Speedway Blvd.

9:00 AM “Origins of Life and the Universe” . . . . .Hank Giesecke

10:00 AM “Fifty Facts Why Evolution Doesn’t Work” . . . .Russell Miller

11:00 AM Lunch

1:00 PM “Age of the Earth, and Intelligent Design” . . . .Hank Hiesecke

2:00 PM “Data from Mt. Saint Helens” . . . . .Russell Miller

3:00 PM Break

4:30 PM Dinner available at U of A’s McKale Center

6:00 PM Debate at University of Arizona McKale Center “Alternative World Views: Evolution and Creation”
Dr. Duane Gish and Professor Peter Sherman

Sunday May 11, 2003
Calvary Tucson East Campus
8:00 and 10:20 AM “Take Creation Captive”.......Hank Giesecke

Calvary Tucson West Campus
9:10 and 11:30 AM “Creation or Chaos”......Dr. John Meyer

Calvary Tucson East Campus
6:00 PM “Why 600 Scientists Reject Evolution” ......Dr. John Meyer

[Doctor Stochastic]

I have called no names. I have only commented about tactics.

How long ago do you feel the Cambrian Explosion occured?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Do you believe that a working nuclear reactor could occur by chance? A reactor with a cooling system and a moderator?

[Stop Legal Plunder]

How long ago do you feel the Cambrian Explosion occured?

I'll take this as a humorous post, as I made it very clear before that one's view of the when of the Cambrian Explosion is a matter of thought, not feelings, if it is to have any connection to rational discourse.

This thread already has enough excess feeling without me adding to it.

[The_Reader_David]

A strange question. I will answer when you answer mine:

Do you believe that the price of a November future on an ounce of gold at the close of trading tomorrow is determined by chance?

[Dimensio]

Okay, give me a FACT that shows one kind of creature evolvng into another kind. Give me a FACT that shows inanimate matter becoming alive all by itself.

While I'm sure that someone can provide you with examples of speciation (several instances have been observed throughout human history), I fail to understand your demand for observation of matter becoming 'alive all by itself', as that has nothing to do with evolution.

Is science about finding the TRUTH, or is science about eliminating God from all explanations?

Science is about coming up with the best explanation to fit observed phenomenon within certain specific criteria. Typically science cannot consider the existence of a "God" because typically "God" is defined as something not entirely 'of the natural universe' and as such not within the scope of science. That isn't to say that science tries to 'disprove' God, but rather that science cannot speak on matters of God (or Goddess or Gods or what have you).

[AndrewC]

The sequence of heating and cooling needed to harden a metal happens with vanishingly small probability in the absence of a craftsman.

Yes and other considerations.

[AndrewC]

Do you believe that a working nuclear reactor could occur by chance?

I guess if that chance is called gravity.

[Aric2000]

Massive blueskipping placemarker.

Some of you creationists may be in fact impressed with this Gore3000 fellow.

The fact of the matter is that HIS ad Hominem statements have been refuted time and time and time again.

He has decided that he if says something enough times, that we will just quit arguing with him and he can keep saying those things after he has been refuted because we will tire of repeating the same facts that refute his attacks.

Well, he's right, we get tired of refuting the same old crap time and time and time again.

Just because he claims it is is true, does NOT make it so, and let me tell, it REALLY is NOT so.

His facts are facts, like the bible is toilet paper to a fundamentalist.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

I fail to understand your demand for observation of matter becoming 'alive all by itself', as that has nothing to do with evolution.

It has everything to do with evolution. One of the biggest gaps in evolutionary theory and in the fossil record is the gap between non-life and life. Inherent in evolution is the speculation that at some point that which was non-life became life. As that violates the law of biogenesis, not to mention common sense, it's very reasonable, indeed vital, to require solid evidence before believing it.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I asked first.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

His facts are facts, like the bible is toilet paper to a fundamentalist.

If that isn't a model troll comment I don't know what is.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You should note that evolutionary theory does not address the beginnings of life at all. Evolutionary theory addresses changes in aggregate populations. There are investigations into the origins of life, but these are not part of evolutionary theory. Neither is cosmology nor accounting.

[Con X-Poser]

Stanz: The problem is, at least according to some of the responses I have seen here over time, that creationists do not accept the validity of the fossil record or DNA testing.

gore3000: No, what the opponents of evolution do not accept is made up stories. That is two different things. The fossil record does not support evolution. The Cambrian explosion totally contradicts evolution, so much in fact that it made Gould and Eldredge give up on Darwinian evolution. The fossil record is also full of gaps in the most important places - such as in mammalian evolution. The greatest change in organism functioning in vertebrates - and the most recent also. This change should because of both these reasons be the most detailed, the fullest, and best supported of all the changes in species and yet there is practically no evidence at all for the gradual evolution of mammals.

As to DNA evidence, there is none. The DNA evidence contradicts evolution. The evolutionists have to 'pick and choose' similarities amongst the millions of species in existence with thousands of different genes to make up what seems like an argument for their side. Anyone can support their side by picking and choosing what fits their theory. The problem for evolution is that there are numerous examples where the DNA does not fit the evolutionary 'tree'.

Doctor Stochastic (FIVE TIMES and counting): Non-responsive. How long ago do you feel that the Cambrian occurred?

Who is being non-responsive? Gore300 made SEVERAL valid points and the Doctor has IGNORED EVERY ONE OF THEM and keeps parroting, "How long ago do you feel that the Cambrian occurred?"

Come on Doctor, ANSWER what was put to you before you ask something and then accuse gore300 of evasion.

Pot, kettle, black, ... it seems the Doctor is a quack.

[Aric2000]

I don't know HOW many times that I have to repeat this to you people.

YOU CANNOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS!!! Therefore science CANNOT use god as a causality.

It is NOT about eliminating god from anything, it is about finding out the truth. When you can PROVE that god exists scientifically, then we can talk about science using god as a causality.

And if the evolutionary tree does NOT make sense to you, well, what can I say. Tells me a lot about your powers of logic and reason.

The fossils fit the tree rather well, and it seems to be branching out rather well, filling up with more fossil evidence. In China we are finding ALL kinds of transitional fossils, it is fascinating, that is if your mind is open enough to listen and look at the evidence, but if your mind is already made up, IE: the creation myth, then no matter what evidence I bring you, it will never be enough to convince you.

See Gore3000 for this kind of closeminded ridiculousness.

Faith is for those that can't handle the truth.

[AndrewC]

If sufficient power was produced the reactor would have lost moderation and reflection, resulting in a shutdown. Until shortlived fission product poisons decayed away, even immediate re-saturation may not have resulted in restarting the nuclear chain reactions. Therefore, the reactor probably did not operate continuously, but at discrete intervals with the operating time determined by the power output, water supply pressure and temperature, and water flow through the reactor. The duration of the shutdown periods would have been determined by the buildup of fissionproduct poisons and the length of time required to replace the moderator (if it boiled away) or to cool it sufficiently to resume the reaction.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I asked a simple question. G3k has refused to respond to that question. Perhaps you will be more polite.

How long ago do you believe that the Cambrian Explosion occurred?

[Dimensio]

Inherent in evolution is the speculation that at some point that which was non-life became life.

Evolution only occurs when life is present. As such, whenever life ultimately originated where there was none before is outside of the scope of evolution. Therefore, 'that at some point that which was non-life became life' is not 'inherent in evolution'. Of course, you made this really funny comment:

One of the biggest gaps in evolutionary theory and in the fossil record is the gap between non-life and life.

Current speculation is that the earliest life forms were single-celled organisms. As such, if there was an event at which that which was non-life became life, there would hardly be any evidence in the 'fossil record'.

[f.Christian]

There is a sub-set of lunatic loons who appear to wish the end of American society as we know it. Like the Nazis and the communists in Weimar Germany, they have a great deal in common as ... potential destroyers --- of the social fabric.

I have engaged in several debates in the last few days, and I admire FreeRepublic as a forum for the free expression of ideas, but the overwhelming presence of this bunch of loons is very off-putting.

Lenin is supposed to have said that capitalists would sell him the rope by which they were to be hung. The “anarcho-loons” on this forum would not bother to sell the rope but provide it as a public service.

401 posted on 05/06/2003 5:54 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)

[Dimensio]

I don't know why people just cannot get it. I've heard creationists try to justify the accusation that evolution must deal with the origins of life because 'how else can it explain its origins'. I've answered before that gravitational theory is a theory that deals with matter, but that the ultimate origins of matter are not a part of the theory, but it seems lost upon them that a similar application occurs with evolution.

[Aric2000]

You are obviously too new to these discussions to realize the truth of that statement I made.

Gore3000's facts are facts, like the bible is toilet paper to a fundamentalist. It is true, has been true and I am afraid will always be true When it comes to Gore3000.

Those of us that understand and feel that evolution is indeed the closest true scientific theory out there right now, can give ALL the facts we want to Gore3000, we can refute his EVERY argument, and he still makes the same BOLD statements, even if they have been refuted 100 times. Then he calls us namecallers because we get tired of talking to a brick wall that doesn't really care about the debate, he just wishes to troll and waste space with his rants. Hoping that some newby creationist will come in and take him seriously.

IE: YOU

You think I am troll, look at Gore3000 for a while, and you will know what a real troll is.