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

[Aric2000]

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.

God ain't science, and science ain't religion, deal with it.

God cannot be used as a causality, because god cannot be proven to exist, that is why it is called faith.

If science used faith then it wouldn't be called science, it would be called religion.

[Con X-Poser]

<< In China we are finding ALL kinds of transitional fossils, >>

And in China, if they can't find them - they MAKE them.

Just add feathers and stir.

Of course, an officially atheistic country would have no motive to forge fossils, would they? And there is no connection between atheism and evolution, is there?

[Aric2000]

Your welcome.

I have no problem stating that I was wrong, and I was and owed you an apology, and since I hit you publicly, the least I could do was apologize to you publicly.

Sorry for jumping on you, I should have followed the responses back and read them. But I didn't, which was stupid.

So again, I am sorry for jumping on you, it was WRONG, and I was WRONG.

[Dimensio]

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.

You asked for documentation of one "kind" of animal changing into another "kind". That's either speciation or you're referring to something that evolution does not address.

Public school and college textbooks lump the entire origins study: cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution and biological evolution, together.

No competent textbook lumps these fields together. No competent textbook at any reputable school would try to claim that a biological theory also applies to chemistry and cosmology, though I have seen at least one Creationist tract that makes such a laughable claim (Big Daddy by Jack Chick).

You know full well that if you mention the big bang to most people, they would consider it part of evolution.

Even if this were true (and I've seen no reason to believe that it is true), this wouldn't make them right. The big bang ha snothign to do with evolution, and attempting to argue what you think that 'most people' think of as a theory rather than the actual theory doesn't make you look very bright.

You also know that biological evolution is impossible if you can't produce life naturally from non-life in the first place.

Why? Be specific, reference exactly the part of the theory that leads to this conclusion.

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).

I never did dare call it science (though I suppose that one could bring up enough to apply the scientific method). Nor is it scientific to assert that a divine entity zap-poofed the first life forms into existence, but that also would not preclude the possibility of evolution.

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.

Eradicating them from the public school and college texts? Why? I've no problem with them being taught, so long as they're not being taught as though they are part of evolutionary theory.

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.

Well, anything that does not fit within the scope of the scientific method is excluded. As such, unless this "God" of which you speak is entirely of the natural universe, can be observed either directly or through tests that will produce repeatable results and can be falsified, then the scientific method cannot say anything regarding the existence or the intervention of this "God". What's your point, are you upset that science doesn't address the supernatural? Science also doesn't consider the possibility that the universe is just one of an infinite series of cycles controlled by the deity Brahman, but I don't hear anyone whining about that.

[Aric2000]

And there is no connection between atheism and evolution, is there?

NOPE, how's that for a blunt answer?

And as far as the Chinese MAKING fossils, our scientists would be having a fit if they found out they were fakes, and so far not a word has been spoken.

Bring me some facts to back up your speculation and I will help you get those "fossils" brought into the spotlight as fakes, but if not, then you need to get a grip.

[Dimensio]

God cannot be used as a causality, because god cannot be proven to exist, that is why it is called faith.

Actually, nothing in science can be proven. One of the things that excludes God from the scientific method is that God is non-falsifiable -- that is, there's no real test that, if it failed, would show that God does not exist.

[jennyp]

Here's why creationists hate to debate in writing. Baffling people with BS gets exposed pretty quickly when put down in writing & responded to in same.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Hey, if you can explain Walter ReMine's argument in the abovementioned debate, more power to you!

[Dimensio]

And as far as the Chinese MAKING fossils, our scientists would be having a fit if they found out they were fakes, and so far not a word has been spoken.

Well, there is prescedent. Keep in mind the fakes throughout history, such as Piltdown man, that were exposed by Creation scientists...

...er, wait, it wasn't creation scientists who exposed Piltdown man. It was scientists who accepted evolution but who were skeptical of the claims regarding Piltdown man. Nevermind.

[Con X-Poser]

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

If you want to talk about manners, etiquette, and being polite, then YOU answer gore3000 first.

Until then, you are duly noted as an evasive weasel.

[Aric2000]

Oh, and to further go onto the question.

And there is no connection between atheism and evolution, is there?

Is there a connection between atheism and astronomy, how about a connection between atheism and physics, or perhaps, Atheism and biology?

Are these sciences somehow connected to atheism as well?

[jennyp]

Only postmodernists & creationists think that objective notions of right & wrong are concepts that cannot be provided by the real world.

The use of "Only" is very arrogant of you...

Oh? Who else am I leaving out?

...and "objective notions" seems to be an oxymoron.

I mean concepts of right & wrong as objectively true, as opposed to "socially constructed competing texts" or "womens' truth vs. mens' truth" or somesuch set of equally valid competing subjective "truths". Creationists likewise believe Man will never converge on a single well-supported consensus of what the Truth is.

[Con X-Poser]

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

He did not bring up Hitler gratuitously, he made a valid point that Hitler was an evolutionist.

Besides that, Godwin was a commie.

[Aric2000]

I can always count on you to correct me on that. And I keep doing it too.

But, it gets your attention, and I always love getting a response from you.

Can you help me reword that, I'll put it in notebook or something and cut and paste it like FC does. ;)

[Dimensio]

He did not bring up Hitler gratuitously, he made a valid point that Hitler was an evolutionist.

Which, if true, still has as much bearing on evolution as Clinton's love of Bic Macs has on McDonalds.

[jennyp]

PMFJI,

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?

Hmmm... I think it is determined partly by chance. Every trader who puts in a market order is making a bet that their order will trade "somewhere" near the last quote they saw, "sometime" in the near future. And the Level II traders (or stock specialists) may see the outstanding limit orders, but they still have no idea how many buy or sell orders are floating out there in the minds of all the traders who are sitting at home at their computers.

I wonder: Has anyone ever modeled a market where only limit orders & stops can get placed? That would seem like a more deterministic system than one with some market orders always coming in over the transom.

Such a system could look like the theoretical marketplace where every market participant announces a binding declaration of how much they'd pay for each product being offered by all the manufacturers out there. This, of course, is the kind of assumption (that you could poll people to determine what "reasonable" prices & production quotas are) that leads overly arrogant economists to believe that they can rationally predict (& therefore control) prices & wages & production according to 5-year government plans.

So, I suspect that you couldn't have a true marketplace if the individual pricing decisions that make it up were totally determined. Interesting. Whaddya think?

[Con X-Poser]

X:And as far as the Chinese MAKING fossils, our scientists would be having a fit if they found out they were fakes, and so far not a word has been spoken.

D: Well, there is prescedent. Keep in mind the fakes throughout history, such as Piltdown man, that were exposed by Creation scientists...

No matter who discovered they were fakes, the fact remains - they were FAKES. That includes Piltdown, archaeoraptor, brontosaurus, the Cardiff ichthyosaurs, the Smithsonian triceratops, hesperopithicus, peppered moths, the Mars rock, Haeckel's embryo drawings, speechless apeman, Huxley's monera, and whatever fraud is exposed next week.

The Mar's rock was refuted by creationists long before evolutionists were force to admit the truth. Then they gave the same reasons for discrediting it that the creationists had given. Suddenly, what had been derided for months as "creationist nonsense" and "religious propaganda" suddenly became "science". What a transformation - what a miracle!

One other reason more of them weren't exposed by creationists is that creationists are forbidden to examine the evolutionary relics. Let's see a creationist get to examine "Lucy". When Dr. Cuozzo did get to examine several Neandertal skulls, he showed how many of the jaws were misaligned, and the museums reluctantly made the corrections that they *had* to make, before chasing him out of Africa so they didn't have to make any more.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks for the ping! :-)

[Con X-Poser]

X: He did not bring up Hitler gratuitously, he made a valid point that Hitler was an evolutionist.

D: Which, if true, still has as much bearing on evolution as Clinton's love of Bic Macs has on McDonalds.

---

Bad analogy. It is relevant because Hitler appealed to evolution for his desire to create a master race and exterminate the inferior. If evolution is true, Hitler was right. He was only trying to help.

[Con X-Poser]

<< And there is no connection between atheism and evolution, is there? >>

Dawkins - atheist

Eugenie Scott - atheist

Mayr - atheist

Dennett - atheist

Plimer - atheist

Rennie - atheist

Gould - atheist (well, not anymore)

Asimov, Huxley, Haldane, Sagan - atheists (well, ex-atheists)

Most every well-known evolutionist is an atheist. That's one incredible coincidence.

[AndrewC]

I mean concepts of right & wrong as objectively true,

A concept is a mental construct, occurring in the mind. Since it is in the mind, by definition, it is subjective. To call something objective it must come from outside the human mind. We may try to be "objective" and take our personal biases out of the equation, but how do we do that without assumption? The "real" world is quite different to different people. Some people have such a different view of the world that we call them insane, others are just colorblind, some might even be tetrachromats.