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]

The question was whether a nuclear reactor could form by chance. Whether the (hypothetical) reactor is/was intermittent is interesting, but not what I asked.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

You should note that evolutionary theory does not address the beginnings of life at all.

Darwin called his magnus opus the "Origin of Species." The beginnings of life is the origin of species. Now, if you're saying that evolutionary theory does not scientifically address the leap from non-life to life, then you're right. But that such a leap took place is part of standard evolutionary doctrine.

Evolutionary theory addresses changes in aggregate populations.

The subtitle of Darwin's book was "The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Survival." That's one of the kinds of population Darwin focused on, and Hitler followed him rather faithfully. It's too bad that modern readers of Darwin are almost always treated to carefully abridged versions of his Origin of Species in class...if they ever see it all.

Neither...cosmology nor accounting [is part of evolutionary theory.]

Cosmology certainly is. I'm sure you've heard of stellar evolution. As for accounting, isn't it a more evolved version of numerology? =)

[Doctor Stochastic]

As you have gratuitiously brought up Hitler, I will invoke Godwin's Law and point out that your side automatically loses.

[Aric2000]

What did that have to do with evolution?

That entire argument had absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution.

Remind your keepers to up your meds again FC.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

Hoping that some newby creationist will come in and take him seriously. IE: YOU

I studied physics under a Nobel laureate as an undergrad. I'm neither a newby to science nor a newby to creationism.

As for Gore3000, he is more thoughtful than most evolutionists with PhDs that I know.

[AndrewC]

The question was whether a nuclear reactor could form by chance.

You don't like my answers? Yes, so does a distilled water "factory".

[Aric2000]

Didn't like that comment, huh FC?

Had to hit back huh? Came a little too close to home did it?

[f.Christian]

The only explanation for your infantile babble 'consciousness' is demon possession --- deliverance !

[Stop Legal Plunder]

Funny.

[Dimensio]

Darwin called his magnus opus the "Origin of Species."

Actually, he called it On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life Just a semantic note.

The beginnings of life is the origin of species.

No, the beginnings of life is the beginnings of life. The origin of the species is where that 'life' diverged and could be considered a different 'species' than before.

Now, if you're saying that evolutionary theory does not scientifically address the leap from non-life to life, then you're right. But that such a leap took place is part of standard evolutionary doctrine.

No, it is not. Evolution is a specific theory that addresses a specific scope of subjects. The ultimate origins of life is not within that scope, though I'm beginning to suspect that what is really happening is that many creationists are falsely accusing evolution of being an attempt to create a completely naturalistic explanation for life on earth, and thus inventing all kinds of things that it needs to address in order to hold up to the false standards that they have given it.

The subtitle of Darwin's book was "The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Survival." That's one of the kinds of population Darwin focused on, and Hitler followed him rather faithfully.

Anyone who thinks that a biological process makes for good social policy is an idiot, and the idiocy in carrying out such a plan has no bearing on the validity of the biological theory. Also, you have just invoked Godwin.

It's too bad that modern readers of Darwin are almost always treated to carefully abridged versions of his Origin of Species in class...if they ever see it all.

Oh, I'd really like to hear about this one. An 'abridged' version? Do tell what is in the unabridged -- perhaps it is the 'proof' that Darwin invented his theory to support a racist philosophy as gore3000 has often insisted (without any real evidence).

[Aric2000]

Good grief, you are new to these discussions, and as Longshadow said, G3K may be one of YOUR colleagues, but he sure as heck is not one of mine.

If you want to lump yourself in with him, be my guest, but don't expect to be taken too seriously after that.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You provided no answer the first time. Your answers may be correct or incorrect; whether I like or dislike them would be irrelevant.

[Aric2000]

ROFLMAO!! You can't be serious.....

OK, well, there goes the neighborhood, another one that is not interested in facts, just in trolling around and disrupting the discussion.

So, I guess it will be Blueskipping placemarker, and a SLP skipping placemarker, because I don't know if I can take many more people that are "Thoughtful" like G3K.

Nobel laureate, hmm, am I supposed to be impressed? Especially after that comment? G3K, thoughtful? that'll be the day.

[AndrewC]

You provided no answer the first time.

Again, you didn't like my answer. I provided an answer you did not understand or did not like, take your choice. Stars are nuclear reactors. And Gabon is believed to have had a fission reactor 2 billion years ago.

[Aric2000]

You just gotta love this, maybe G3K decided he needed a new handle without the blue to be taken seriously again.

If only that were true.

[Doctor Stochastic]

What's not to like? You didn't answer the queston then. The third time, you did.

Actually stars don't have a cooling system other than radiation and convection. However, you're right about the reactor in Gabon (or at least near there). There are others. I think the guys who designed Chernobyl could have learned from the Gabonese design. Maybe Hans Blix could have too (he didn't help Chernobyl much.)

[AndrewC]

Actually stars don't have a cooling system other than radiation and convection

You had no limitation on the components other than their existence. Moderation of the reaction is due to volume expansion.

[Aric2000]

Wow, that is pretty cool, learn something new every day.

A natural Fission reactor in Oklo Gabon, who would of thunk it.

Andrew, my apologies, now I understand where the Negative Delta S came from.

Pretty fascinating stuff.

Wow, from evolution to natural fission reactors, these threads go all over the place.

[AndrewC]

Andrew, my apologies, now I understand where the Negative Delta S came from.

Thank you!

[Con X-Poser]

<< While I'm sure that someone can provide you with examples of speciation (several instances have been observed throughout human history), >>

Speciation, especially when 'speciation' can be defined as needed, is not evolution. A black bird and a white bird producing a gray bird is not evolution.

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

Public school and college textbooks lump the entire origins study: cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution and biological evolution, together. You know full well that if you mention the big bang to most people, they would consider it part of evolution. You also know that biological evolution is impossible if you can't produce life naturally from non-life in the first place. Well, I suppose you could claim some flying saucer aliens planted life here - but don't DARE call that science (and that still is life begetting life).

If you disagree that abiogenesis, and all the items before it, are part of evolution, then I'm sure you'll be glad to join us in eradicating them from public school and college texts. We'll be glad to have your help. :-)

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

Dimensio: Science is about coming up with the best explanation to fit observed phenomenon within certain specific criteria.

You mean the best explanation that excludes God, don't you?

<< 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's what I thought. God is automatically excluded ahead of time, no matter where the evidence leads, what the facts are, or what the truth is.